Does AGI have to be a network

  • 26 Replies
  • 1186 Views
*

Zero

  • Trusty Member
  • ********
  • Replicant
  • *
  • 732
    • Thinkbots are free
Re: Does AGI have to be a network
« Reply #15 on: September 24, 2018, 08:52:54 am »
AGI should be something that NASA can confidently send to Mars. They like things like PLEXIL.

Ed: ...or that Skynet can confidently send to 1984  ;D
Thinkbots are free, as in 'free will'.

*

WriterOfMinds

  • Trusty Member
  • ****
  • Electric Dreamer
  • *
  • 143
    • WriterOfMinds Blog
Re: Does AGI have to be a network
« Reply #16 on: September 24, 2018, 04:05:46 pm »
Quote
You mention specialized, "hardcoded" algorithms. Being frozen, don't they limit the potential evolution of the system?

When I said specialized, I didn't mean frozen.  Such algorithms can make provision for learning and self-adjustment, though it is likely that they would not be *completely* flexible -- there would be some fixed core.  In the limiting case of a fully developed AGI that has equivalent skill to a human programmer, it would be capable of changing and re-optimizing its own algorithms to any degree desired.

It may be worth mentioning that the "G" in AGI is a relative term.  Human intelligence is the most generalized biological intelligence we know of, but even it should not be regarded as fully general.  For instance, the sensory processing abilities of our brains may be adapted to the senses we have.  Different brain regions handle different senses, suggesting some underlying structural optimization.  If you hooked our brains up to something exotic (like the electroreception organs of a shark), it is unclear how well they'd do at handling that information.

There's probably a tradeoff to be made between complete plasticity/generality and effectiveness at any given task.

*

Zero

  • Trusty Member
  • ********
  • Replicant
  • *
  • 732
    • Thinkbots are free
Re: Does AGI have to be a network
« Reply #17 on: September 25, 2018, 10:05:52 am »
So, these algorithms are rather like agents, able to adapt (to some extent) their behavior to their environment to better fulfil their mission.

Agents can have a data axis and a meta axis. The meta input is for modifying the agent's behavior from the outside. The meta ouput is for the agent's activity log, and other things.

About plasticity, we know that regions of the brain that are specialised in a particular type of activity can be reassigned to other activities. But that makes sense only in highly parallel systems.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2018, 11:02:12 am by Zero »
Thinkbots are free, as in 'free will'.

*

ranch vermin

  • Not much time left.
  • Terminator
  • *********
  • 958
  • Its nearly time!
Re: Does AGI have to be a network
« Reply #18 on: September 25, 2018, 10:58:17 am »
Maybe a system that uses length of conductors instead of conductor architecture. You could have a brain made from a lot of unconnected conductors lined up together like bristles on a brush. Each one would self adjust it's length based on feedback from the input signal (eye) or feedback from the thing it outputs to (muscle). It might act more like a jellyfish than an AGI though.

Jelly fish are amazing.

*

Zero

  • Trusty Member
  • ********
  • Replicant
  • *
  • 732
    • Thinkbots are free
Re: Does AGI have to be a network
« Reply #19 on: September 25, 2018, 11:18:15 am »
I don't know much about Jelly fish, but ants are cool. An ant colony has only one brain. But the brain cells are distributed among the ants. Sort of.
Thinkbots are free, as in 'free will'.

*

ranch vermin

  • Not much time left.
  • Terminator
  • *********
  • 958
  • Its nearly time!
Re: Does AGI have to be a network
« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2018, 03:19:36 pm »
yeh that sounds quite undefeatable, a hive of telepathic robots, blue toothing each other.

*

Zero

  • Trusty Member
  • ********
  • Replicant
  • *
  • 732
    • Thinkbots are free
Re: Does AGI have to be a network
« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2018, 08:51:56 am »
I used to consider that networks of identical nodes was the most direct path to AGI, because of the plasticity it allows. But I'm more and more convinced that a thought stack as central mind structure is a better idea. Stack oriented languages really feel like thinking, don't they? The top of the stack is what you're currently thinking. Often, you put the current thought in "standby mode", in the background, while you solve another little thought train. Once done, you get back to your previous thinking process.

The thing is that stack should be supplied with high-level stuff by an interpretation/recognition mechanism. I don't know exactly how to do it. There's a notion of expectation and importance: you tend to focus on relevant things that are unusual/unexpected...
Thinkbots are free, as in 'free will'.

*

korrelan

  • Trusty Member
  • **********
  • Millennium Man
  • *
  • 1087
  • Look into my eyes! WOAH!
    • YouTube
Re: Does AGI have to be a network
« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2018, 11:05:28 am »
Quote
Stack oriented languages really feel like thinking, don't they?

I can see how it would feel that way, but your consciousness is at the top of a very complex hierarchy, you’re trying to figure out how the processor works by just looking at the monitor.

I think a thought is an accumulation/ compounding/ focusing of numerous lower level facets/ concepts.  Every thought is made of smaller facets, bits of knowledge that guide the main thought patterns’ creation. 

From my understanding of a stack (which could be wrong of course) it’s the topmost item/ concept that’s relevant at any given time.

Quote
I don't know exactly how to do it.

Ok so a stack is module that contains items, the items are ordered according to their relevance regarding the current thought, the topmost being the output.

Each item in the stack has a set of triggers/ inputs that move it up or down, these inputs are provided by lower stacks in the hierarchy.  It’s a hierarchy driven by the outputs of lower hierarchies.

Let’s consider a stack that simply provides the left hands grasp state.  The fingers have joints, so each joint gets a stack that represents the angle of each joint; the outputs from the joint sensors are fed into a finger position stack.  The pattern of outputs from the joint stacks brings an item to the top of the finger position stack representing the whole finger position.  Then the output patterns from the five finger stacks are fed into the overall had position stack, driving the correct overall posture to the top… hmmmm.

It’s like a high level modular representation of a how neural nets work.  It takes a collection of neurons with several outputs to provide a varied output pattern.  So each neuron group would represent an item in the stack, the pattern they all receive would only fire one output neuron; this represents the item at the top of the stack… similar to a Perceptron.

Quote
There's a notion of expectation and importance: you tend to focus on relevant things that are unusual/unexpected...

You could have global governance stacks that take their inputs from all over the hierarchy, their output could be used as bias, to guide the lower stacks, providing top down influence.

A stack is a logical module that provides an output dependent on its inputs.

If thinking about the problem space in this manner helps then run with it, you only have to design one stack module and a connection schema… cool.  You could build some extremely complex architectures with this, and might get more insight into the problem space as you progress.

 :)
It thunk... therefore it is!

*

Zero

  • Trusty Member
  • ********
  • Replicant
  • *
  • 732
    • Thinkbots are free
Re: Does AGI have to be a network
« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2018, 12:12:13 pm »
Wow, very nice!  O0

You're always a lot more "bottom-up approach" than me, korrelan. That's a good structure you're describing here. Would I be right to call it... a network of stacks?!!   ::)

We could also imagine a multi-dimensional stack, like ranch said. Some kind of reversed tree: the top of the stack is the root of the tree. Under the unique top-most element, there's more than one stack-branches, which themselves have more than one stack-branches... It opens several unusual possibilities!
Thinkbots are free, as in 'free will'.

*

ranch vermin

  • Not much time left.
  • Terminator
  • *********
  • 958
  • Its nearly time!
Re: Does AGI have to be a network
« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2018, 01:59:02 pm »
Wow, very nice!  O0

You're always a lot more "bottom-up approach" than me, korrelan. That's a good structure you're describing here. Would I be right to call it... a network of stacks?!!   ::)

We could also imagine a multi-dimensional stack, like ranch said. Some kind of reversed tree: the top of the stack is the root of the tree. Under the unique top-most element, there's more than one stack-branches, which themselves have more than one stack-branches... It opens several unusual possibilities!

Yes!    I disbanded from it because I was being retarded and thought I could put infinite bits in one,    the demo lasted about 5 pops then it died in digital noise.

*

Zero

  • Trusty Member
  • ********
  • Replicant
  • *
  • 732
    • Thinkbots are free
Re: Does AGI have to be a network
« Reply #25 on: September 27, 2018, 02:31:00 pm »
When in doubt, give it a try! That's the way to do it.
Thinkbots are free, as in 'free will'.

*

korrelan

  • Trusty Member
  • **********
  • Millennium Man
  • *
  • 1087
  • Look into my eyes! WOAH!
    • YouTube
Re: Does AGI have to be a network
« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2018, 01:55:08 pm »
Quote
That's a good structure you're describing here. Would I be right to call it... a network of stacks?!!

That was my interpretation of the structure/ schema… you were describing, I was just trying to jog your creativity.  You can call it anything you like, Stackoids, Netstacks, Stacknets or a network of stacks if you like.

I was driving back yesterday and had few more thoughts; you will probably require different types of stacks.  So besides just the pins moving up/ down depending on the stacks input, a type were any pin is moved straight to the top of it’s stack and output if the key is injected and another were if all pins are triggered in a stack it fires, etc. more types will become clear as you develop.

The schema also has some very distinct advantages.

It is very compliant with a graphical interface, drag, drop and link, etc.
Any type of data can be exchanged between stacks, not just strings.
It can easily receive imported data types, from visual modules, etc.
It’s compatible with a parallel architecture and so can be run on multiple cores/ machines.
Anyone can write compatible plugin modules, with an understanding of the data protocols.

Keep us up to date on your progress…

 :)
It thunk... therefore it is!

 


Users Online

68 Guests, 0 Users

Most Online Today: 116. Most Online Ever: 208 (August 27, 2008, 09:36:30 am)

Articles