I'm not sure what to do with this. It's main purpose is context free
word sense disambiguation. But disambiguation is not really a useful
intermediate goal in natural language processing unless it's for
something like a search engine. For most NLP tasks the real problem is
modeling or computing probabilities over long strings. Disambiguation

You guys may be interested in this <[link]>.

== quote ==

We are happy to release a resource, spanning 7,560,141 concepts and 175,100,788 unique text strings, that we hope will help everyone working in [information retrieval and natural language processing].

KY,
Good luck at making impressions for Genifer and AGI at the start-up convention!!
-RS
______________________________ __
From: "YKY (Yan King Yin, 甄景贤)" <generic.intellige...@gmail.co m>
To: general-intelligence@googlegro ups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:28 PM

This is a good idea I think ... forward-chaining should be very suitable for this kind of processing.  It can also parse commands and give English explanations.  There's also fuzzy auto-complete in some IDEs...

this is one program that can compare similar code segments..

[link]

whether this happens in a command shell or IDE is pretty much the same
thing since this application would blur the lines between them.

for example, the strace/ltrace features Jim suggested would be analogous to

SeH,

I was actually thinking about a similar idea, in the context of programming
IDEs. It often happens that I write the same kind of structure twice or
more, either within the same function or in several functions. Usually when
I notice I'll make a function out of it, but not always. It's slightly

This is a good idea I think ... forward-chaining should be very suitable
for this kind of processing. It can also parse commands and give English
explanations. There's also fuzzy auto-complete in some IDEs...

I'm going to a local startup competition to introduce Genifer to some local
Hong Kong people... which lasts for the weekend... will get back to this

absolutely, command auto-completion suggestions could certainly be
involved.

i certainly recognize the relevant application of compression and also the
inductive logic solution applied in the mentioned paper.

yes! i think the strace or ltrace traces for a given command could indicate:

training against strace dumps of any program, shell or otherwise would be
trivial to provide for a stream of entity actions to classify

That's an interesting idea. One problem might be ending up with more
macros than you can remember. Another approach might be auto-complete
by comparing what you are typing with commands you entered previously.
In either case, it's similar to the problem of compressing your
command history.

i was thinking of a command shell, or an extension to existing shell like
BASH that analyzes your command history and automatically suggests macros
that cover frequently used command patterns.

for example, if i end up typing commands like:

find | fgrep '.c'
find | fgrep 'y'

it would suggest or create a new macro:

* and + may look isomorphic to AND and OR, but
a*b != b*a
whereas
a AND b = b AND a.

That makes the logic subtly different from Boolean algebra... otherwise
we'd be able to use database query optimizers to answer queries in Gen
logic.

In fact, Genifer's * and + can co-exist with Boolean algebra, resulting in

so far you've got something that looks like sparql test queries.

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:14 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin, 甄景贤) <

May I be free to draw a parallel I was inspired to by you?

This strongly reminds me of induction / reverse induction, although it's
somewhat different from it

a+b+<something else> |= x

When we say x we are not sure does it imply back a, b, <something else>, or
some combination of thees. It would have to be at least one of thees, but

I just implemented some Clojure functions for context management. All the
contexts are stored in a big tree structure.

What I discovered is that contexts cannot deal with the problem of compound
sentences, so the logic really needs to have 2 operations: composition and
pairing. Their axioms look like addition and multiplication:

If equations are understood to work both ways, then clearly this is an
abuse, yes.

--Abram

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 3:36 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin, 甄景贤) <

--
Abram Demski
[link]

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Evan Reese <mentat1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> **
> Well, I guess that's fair enough. But in the interest of even more
> fairness, it would only be right to point out in the Case Against
> subsection that negative predictions of scientific or technological
> progress do not have a good track record historically, and illustrate with
> examples, of which there are plenty.
>
> Sometimes those clouds you refer to are not as substantial as they appear,
> or are completely illusory, based as they are on false assumptions. For
> example, why do you assume that AGI requires reverse engineering the human
> brain? And sometimes, if those clouds are in fact substantial, they can be
> overcome with intelligent application of hard work.
>

Yeah, and sometimes the clouds merely obscure the view of what lies
beyond.

Ben,

I have been a bit misunderstood, and since misunderstandings are
automatically the fault of the writer (me), I'll try again:

When building towers or pyramids to the heavens, the uncertainty is NOT is
whether you can build a tower as high as the (lower) clouds, but rather
whether heaven is really just up there where the clouds are.

Similarly, AGIs, even if a simple way can be found to build them, MUST
incorporate the horrendous complexity (e.g. ~200 different KINDS of neurons
in our brains) of our own thinking processes if the AGIs are ever to make
"intelligent" guesses what we will do. Sure, there could be some sort of
end-around this apparent barrier that no one now sees, but the presumption
that there **IS** some way around this barrier is just as fundamental to
AGI success as is the presumption that heaven is up in those clouds. Note
that the pyramids SUCCEEDED in reaching the lower clouds. Again, I am NOT
saying that an AGI itself would necessarily have to built using such a
complex array of (virtual) "components" (though I personally suspect that
this would be necessary, this is NOT the point that I am trying to make
here). Instead, how is a "logical" machine to ever grasp jealousy, desire,
unfounded suspicion, fright, delight, etc., etc., if it hasn't been built
to experience such illogical phemonema - which suddenly becomes "logical"
when you interact with a world full of creatures (us) who make our
decisions based on such craziness.

There are several other serious barriers that should be enumerated, to
escape the stupid social consensus that we mutually distaste. Once you list
the barriers to most people's satisfaction (some religions people will
never ever be convinced), then you can have a logical discussion about
research, funding, etc. Until then, EVERYTHING is just barely wishful
thinking, and certainly NOT fodder for serious study.

Regarding Evan's comments, There are two kinds of predictions:
1. Extrapolations of presently known technology, and
2. Developments where present science provides no roadmap for success.

I think you are referring to #1 above. There is now an ongoing dispute
regarding AGI, where Ben (and others, probably including you) assert AGI is
#1, while I (and others) assert that AGI is #2 above. The #1 argument is
that the apparent barriers are there only because no one has yet come up
with the right algorithm. The #2 argument is that there are some
demonstrations (but not proofs) of extreme problem complexity, like the
large number of different kinds of neurons in our brains. This REALLY needs
to be resolved.

The problem is that AGI R&D needs some MAJOR funding, yet that is being
held up for proof-of-concept reasons. Funding will be held up FOREVER until
the barriers are enumerated and addressed, whereupon funding will probably
become available without even having to demonstrate a working prototype.

Note that my brain mapping proposal, in addition to mapping brains, will
probably answer LOTS of questions regarding what goes on behind our
eyeballs, that can then be coded to perform MUCH better than our wetware.

Note that in the past that I have tried to drum up interest in quantifying
the challenges, e.g. with my proposals for a Reverse Turing Test where
teams compete to best emulate an AGI, and a Rock-Paper_Scissors competition
to see what ultimately happens when limitless pattern recognizers compete,
as they are doing right now in the stock market. Artifacts like the "flash
crash" are predictable artifacts of such things. I have found ZERO interest
in these areas, which are SO fundamental to eliminating the conspicuous
barriers AGI funding. From this, I have concluded that those now working in
AGI simply don't have the brainpower to succeed in their efforts. Closing
this gap would seem to be a requisite for success.

Steve
====================
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:

>
> Steve,
>
> The idea that these radical possibilities I mention on that Web page may
> be difficult or impossible is pretty much the consensus, "commonsense" view
> of our society today. All of contemporary politics and economics and
> social policy, for instance, is founded on the assumption that these
> radical possibilities will occur far in the future if ever...
>
> The point of the page I just created is to call peoples' attention to the
> ideas of some of the serious scientists and thinkers around today, who
> think these radical possibilities are possible and feasible in the near
> term.
>
> The wonderful thing about the Net is, we can each post whatever we think
> is most useful and interesting. So, you can make your own page of arguments
> against all the possibilities I discuss on my page, and email out a link to
> it ;-)
>
> By the way, your statement that I assume AGI requires reverse engineering
> the human brain is a bit bizarre. My own AGI research programme is not at
> all based on reverse engineering or otherwise emulating the human brain.
> If you look at Pei Wang's page on AGI, that I included in my list, his
> discussion and links are almost wholly about non-brain-oriented AGI
> approaches. My list also included articles by folks like Randal Koene who
> advocate achieving AGI via emulating the human brain. The point of that
> list wasn't to promulgate my specific perspective on various issues, but
> rather to collect together introductory material on various key aspects of
> the radical futurist perspective...
>
> thx
> ben
>
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Evan Reese <mentat1@dslextreme.com>wrote:
>
>> **
>> Well, I guess that's fair enough. But in the interest of even more
>> fairness, it would only be right to point out in the Case Against
>> subsection that negative predictions of scientific or technological
>> progress do not have a good track record historically, and illustrate with
>> examples, of which there are plenty.
>>
>> Sometimes those clouds you refer to are not as substantial as they
>> appear, or are completely illusory, based as they are on false assumptions.
>> For example, why do you assume that AGI requires reverse engineering the
>> human brain? And sometimes, if those clouds are in fact substantial, they
>> can be overcome with intelligent application of hard work.
>>
>> Evan
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Steve Richfield <steve.richfield@gmail.com>
>> *To:* Singularity <singularity@listbox.com>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 19, 2012 3:09 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Singularity] Radical Futurism for Newbies
>>
>> Ben,
>>
>> Each section needs subsection for "The Case Against ...". For example
>> your present format advances the cause of AGI, and the problems with
>> advancing technology, but never directly presents the case against AGI.
>>
>> Also, there are good arguments against the practicality/possibility of
>> many of the sections, e.g. how radiation scrambling of DNA fundamentally
>> limits lifespan beyond the hope of gerontological approaches, or how the
>> evolutionary complexity of our own brains may make AGI engineering orders
>> of magnitude more difficult than can now be seen. These arguments are not
>> nearly as famous as the arguments for, because there is no percentage for
>> anyone in presenting roadblocks rather than simply allowing others to run
>> into them.
>>
>> In every society there are always people (like you?) who present
>> reasonable-sounding cases for building towers or pyramids to the heavens,
>> and they always get a LOT more press than those who point out that there
>> are only clouds up there.
>>
>> Steve
>> ================
>> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Based on feedback from a number of folks, plus my own quasi-random
>>> memory-digging, I put together a page of links called "Radical
>>> Futurism for Newbies" ...
>>>
>>> http://wp.goertzel.org/?page_id=310
>>>
>>> This is version 1 and some links will likely be added/deleted over the
>>> next weeks/months....
>>>
>>> At some point I will get these translated into Chinese and posted on a
>>> website in China.... All these ideas are already available in Chinese
>>> language in some form or another; but compared to the English Web,
>>> information on them seems a lot more scattered and tricky to find....
>>>
>>> The English version will also serve some purpose, I feel. I've long
>>> wanted somewhere to point people interested in these futurist topics
>>> but with little background. I often tell them to read Ray's book "The
>>> Singularity Is Near", which is not a bad starting-point ... but then,
>>> Ray's particular take isn't going to resonate with everybody. I think
>>> it's better to expose newbies to a variety of relevant perspectives,
>>> so they can then decide for themselves which aspect they prefer to dig
>>> into....
>>>
>>> -- Ben Goertzel
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ben Goertzel, PhD
>>> http://goertzel.org
>>>
>>> "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> Singularity
>>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
>>> RSS Feed:
>>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/14489617-39b0b867
>>> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&amp;
>>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a
>> six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back
>> full employment.
>>
>>
>> *Singularity* | Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now&gt;
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/20874280-c9940859&gt; |
>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&&gt; Your Subscription
>> <http://www.listbox.com&gt;
>>
>> *Singularity* | Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now&gt;
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/4002533-58e9ee93&gt; |
>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&&gt; Your Subscription
>> <http://www.listbox.com&gt;
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ben Goertzel, PhD
> http://goertzel.org
>
> "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche
>
> *Singularity* | Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now&gt;
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/14489617-39b0b867&gt; |
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&>Your Subscription
> <http://www.listbox.com&gt;
>



--
Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six
hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full
employment.

Steve,

The idea that these radical possibilities I mention on that Web page may be
difficult or impossible is pretty much the consensus, "commonsense" view of
our society today. All of contemporary politics and economics and social
policy, for instance, is founded on the assumption that these radical
possibilities will occur far in the future if ever...

The point of the page I just created is to call peoples' attention to the
ideas of some of the serious scientists and thinkers around today, who
think these radical possibilities are possible and feasible in the near
term.

The wonderful thing about the Net is, we can each post whatever we think is
most useful and interesting. So, you can make your own page of arguments
against all the possibilities I discuss on my page, and email out a link to
it ;-)

By the way, your statement that I assume AGI requires reverse engineering
the human brain is a bit bizarre. My own AGI research programme is not at
all based on reverse engineering or otherwise emulating the human brain.
If you look at Pei Wang's page on AGI, that I included in my list, his
discussion and links are almost wholly about non-brain-oriented AGI
approaches. My list also included articles by folks like Randal Koene who
advocate achieving AGI via emulating the human brain. The point of that
list wasn't to promulgate my specific perspective on various issues, but
rather to collect together introductory material on various key aspects of
the radical futurist perspective...

thx
ben

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Evan Reese <mentat1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> **
> Well, I guess that's fair enough. But in the interest of even more
> fairness, it would only be right to point out in the Case Against
> subsection that negative predictions of scientific or technological
> progress do not have a good track record historically, and illustrate with
> examples, of which there are plenty.
>
> Sometimes those clouds you refer to are not as substantial as they appear,
> or are completely illusory, based as they are on false assumptions. For
> example, why do you assume that AGI requires reverse engineering the human
> brain? And sometimes, if those clouds are in fact substantial, they can be
> overcome with intelligent application of hard work.
>
> Evan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Steve Richfield <steve.richfield@gmail.com>
> *To:* Singularity <singularity@listbox.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 19, 2012 3:09 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Singularity] Radical Futurism for Newbies
>
> Ben,
>
> Each section needs subsection for "The Case Against ...". For example your
> present format advances the cause of AGI, and the problems with advancing
> technology, but never directly presents the case against AGI.
>
> Also, there are good arguments against the practicality/possibility of
> many of the sections, e.g. how radiation scrambling of DNA fundamentally
> limits lifespan beyond the hope of gerontological approaches, or how the
> evolutionary complexity of our own brains may make AGI engineering orders
> of magnitude more difficult than can now be seen. These arguments are not
> nearly as famous as the arguments for, because there is no percentage for
> anyone in presenting roadblocks rather than simply allowing others to run
> into them.
>
> In every society there are always people (like you?) who present
> reasonable-sounding cases for building towers or pyramids to the heavens,
> and they always get a LOT more press than those who point out that there
> are only clouds up there.
>
> Steve
> ================
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Based on feedback from a number of folks, plus my own quasi-random
>> memory-digging, I put together a page of links called "Radical
>> Futurism for Newbies" ...
>>
>> http://wp.goertzel.org/?page_id=310
>>
>> This is version 1 and some links will likely be added/deleted over the
>> next weeks/months....
>>
>> At some point I will get these translated into Chinese and posted on a
>> website in China.... All these ideas are already available in Chinese
>> language in some form or another; but compared to the English Web,
>> information on them seems a lot more scattered and tricky to find....
>>
>> The English version will also serve some purpose, I feel. I've long
>> wanted somewhere to point people interested in these futurist topics
>> but with little background. I often tell them to read Ray's book "The
>> Singularity Is Near", which is not a bad starting-point ... but then,
>> Ray's particular take isn't going to resonate with everybody. I think
>> it's better to expose newbies to a variety of relevant perspectives,
>> so they can then decide for themselves which aspect they prefer to dig
>> into....
>>
>> -- Ben Goertzel
>>
>> --
>> Ben Goertzel, PhD
>> http://goertzel.org
>>
>> "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Singularity
>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
>> RSS Feed:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/14489617-39b0b867
>> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&amp;
>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six
> hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full
> employment.
>
>
> *Singularity* | Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now&gt;
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/20874280-c9940859&gt; |
> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&&gt; Your Subscription
> <http://www.listbox.com&gt;
>
> *Singularity* | Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now&gt;
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/4002533-58e9ee93&gt; |
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&>Your Subscription
> <http://www.listbox.com&gt;
>



--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
http://goertzel.org

"My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Well, I guess that's fair enough. But in the interest of even more fairness, it would only be right to point out in the Case Against subsection that negative predictions of scientific or technological progress do not have a good track record historically, and illustrate with examples, of which there are plenty.

Sometimes those clouds you refer to are not as substantial as they appear, or are completely illusory, based as they are on false assumptions. For example, why do you assume that AGI requires reverse engineering the human brain? And sometimes, if those clouds are in fact substantial, they can be overcome with intelligent application of hard work.

Evan

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Richfield
To: Singularity
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Singularity] Radical Futurism for Newbies


Ben,

Each section needs subsection for "The Case Against ...". For example your present format advances the cause of AGI, and the problems with advancing technology, but never directly presents the case against AGI.

Also, there are good arguments against the practicality/possibility of many of the sections, e.g. how radiation scrambling of DNA fundamentally limits lifespan beyond the hope of gerontological approaches, or how the evolutionary complexity of our own brains may make AGI engineering orders of magnitude more difficult than can now be seen. These arguments are not nearly as famous as the arguments for, because there is no percentage for anyone in presenting roadblocks rather than simply allowing others to run into them.

In every society there are always people (like you?) who present reasonable-sounding cases for building towers or pyramids to the heavens, and they always get a LOT more press than those who point out that there are only clouds up there.

Steve
================

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:

Hi,

Based on feedback from a number of folks, plus my own quasi-random
memory-digging, I put together a page of links called "Radical
Futurism for Newbies" ...

http://wp.goertzel.org/?page_id=310

This is version 1 and some links will likely be added/deleted over the
next weeks/months....

At some point I will get these translated into Chinese and posted on a
website in China.... All these ideas are already available in Chinese
language in some form or another; but compared to the English Web,
information on them seems a lot more scattered and tricky to find....

The English version will also serve some purpose, I feel. I've long
wanted somewhere to point people interested in these futurist topics
but with little background. I often tell them to read Ray's book "The
Singularity Is Near", which is not a bad starting-point ... but then,
Ray's particular take isn't going to resonate with everybody. I think
it's better to expose newbies to a variety of relevant perspectives,
so they can then decide for themselves which aspect they prefer to dig
into....

-- Ben Goertzel

--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
http://goertzel.org

"My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche


-------------------------------------------
Singularity
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/14489617-39b0b867
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&amp;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com




--
Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment.



Singularity | Archives | Modify Your Subscription

As someone who is devouring as much information on AGI,
Thanks for making this list!

I also really love your talks on agi-school.org

Cheers,
Jarrad

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:
> I often get asked questions like: “If I want to work on AGI, what
> should I study first to get up to speed?”
>
> This new page gives a rough stab at an answer.
>
> http://wp.goertzel.org/?page_id=325
>
> ... basically just a list of books, but it may be of use to somebody...
>
> -- Ben
>
>
> --
> Ben Goertzel, PhD
> http://goertzel.org
>
> "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> AGI
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/22581513-9fe46a1c
> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&amp;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com