s1dechnl

Indeed, no one with a mind capable of grasping the foundations of AGI would take such an intellectually incompatible step of publishing the full details of how to construct it. Such an unaware mind would simply fall short long before gaining a glimpse of the underpinnings.

In the first moments of realization, one would more likely be scared into silence for some time. Upon gaining their bearings , they'd probably be drawn into even more silence and careful minded reflections on the implications and assessment on how to more publicly move forward. Thanks for the parallel framing in yet another powerful research field gone35.

I think what I have stated is quite fair and established at this point in documented human history... There's no reason to play games and shy away from the truth and reality anymore. This continued games we play with each other via masking our true selves and intentions is what leads to the bulk of suffering and what people claim 'we didn't see coming'. The vast potential of the information age has devolved into a game of disinformation, manipulation, and exploitation and the underpinnings of such were clear to anyone being honest with themselves as it began to set in. The facebook revelations were stated years in advance before we reached this juncture. Academics/Psychologist conducted research/published reports on observations any honest person could make about what the platforms functioned on and what it was doing to society.

> All that is required is pen/paper/computer/internet connection Then why do we play the game of unfounded popularity? Why isn't there are more equal spotlight? Why do the most uninformed on a topic acclaim the most prominent voice? In these groupings you mention are hidden and implied establishments of power/capability. A grouping if PhDs, regardless of their works is considered to be of more valuable than an individual w/ no such ranking but whom has established far more (as shown by history). The forgotten heroes, contributors, etc is a common observation of history. It's not that they're 'forgotten', it's that social psyche choses not to spotlight or highlight them because they dont fit certain molds. An established/name personality asks for funding and gets it regardless of whether or not they have a cohesive plan for achieving something. Convince enough people of a doomsday destructive scenario and you'll get more funding than someone who is trying to honestly create something. Of course, you can then edit mission statements post-funding. What of the lost potential opportunity? What of the current state of academia? > https://www.nature.com/news/young-talented-and-fed-up-scient... > https://www.nature.com/news/let-researchers-try-new-paths-1.... > https://www.nature.com/news/fewer-numbers-better-science-1.2... The articles do get published long after a trend has been operating.. Nothing changes. It takes then someone who truly wants to implement change for the better w/ no other influence or goal in mind to fundamentally change something. This happens time and time again throughout history but institutions and power structures marginalize such occurrences to rebuff and necessitate their standing.

You don't need people in the same physical location in 2018 to conduct collaborative work yet the physical institution model still remains ingrained in people's heads. Money could go further, reach more developers, and provide for more discovery if it was spread out more and centralized in lower cost areas yet the elite circles continue to congregate in the valley.

The Ethos of Type A extroverts being the movers/shakers of the world has been proven to be a lie in recent times. So, what results in fundamental change/discovery isn't a collective of well known individuals in grand institutions. It is indeed the introvert at a lessor known university who publishes a world changing idea and paper who only then becomes a blurred footnote in a more prominent institution and individual's paper. The world does function on populism and fanfare.

> Second, this mythology has significant personal cost. It indeed does. It causes the true innovators and discovers a world of pain and suffering throughout their life as they are crushed underneath the weight of bureaucratic and procedural lies the broader world tells itself to preserve antiquated structures.

> More young scientists must realize that it is possible to make significant contributions toward human knowledge while making good money, building a strong reputation, and having a healthy personal life. Maybe then we'd have more people doing science for a lifetime instead of flaming out after 5-10 years.

More Young scientist must be given the chance to pursue REAL research and be empowered to do so. They must be empowered to think different. They must be emboldened to leap frog their predecessors and encouraged to do so w/o becoming some head honcho's footnote. Their contributions must be recognized. They must be funded at a high level w/o bureaucratic nonsense an favoritism. A PhD should not undergo an impoverished hell of subservience to an institution resulting in them subjecting others to nonsensical white papers and over complexities. A lot of things should change that haven't even as prominent publications and figures have themselves admitted : https://www.nature.com/collections/bfgpmvrtjy/

I've walked the halls of academia and industry.. I've seen the threads and publications in which everyone complains about the elusive problems but no one has the will or the desire to be honest about their root causes or commit to the personal sacrifices it will take to see through solutions.

I'll probably have the most negative score on Ycombinator by the end of my commentary in this thread yet will be saying the most truthful things... This is the inverted state of things.

So, Mankind has had a long time to break the loops they seem stuck in. Now is the time for a fundamental leap and jump to that next thing beyond the localized foolishness, lies, disinformation, and games we play with each other.

You're welcome to contact me when it occurs. I think I defined who I was in an earlier comment against the advice of someone who claimed it might impact my ability to get capital in the future.

Old foundations are meant to be redefined/invalidate by new. - Complexity theory - Computational Theory - Graph Theory Are all subsets of Information theory. They're approaches/frames. New ones can be created that invalidate the established limits imposed by others.

Everything is possible until proven. Given how little attribution is paid to people who break through fundamental aspects of understanding and given how much politics and favoring is played in publications/academic circles, one who doesn't have standing in such circles would be a fool to openly resolve some of the most outstanding and fundamental aspects of the problems that plague them. I've read about and watched a number of individuals with proven track records and contributions to science/technology be marginalized, exploited and written off. I've watch a number of corporations exploit such individuals works w/ no attribution or established recognition beyond a footnote. I've watched the world attempt to suggest such inventions/establishments come via mechanisms and institutions that they do not. So, I know better this time around as to what to do w/ my works.

Just about every person who contributes fundamentally to the world is called a crank at some point it in time. It conveys the huge disconnect the average and even prestigious individual has with reality and/or the attempts they make to reframe it to fit their purpose, narrative, standing..

My comment history has yet to receive any remarks that refute its establishments beyond down votes. It stands alone in this manner as will the foundational establishment of AGI.

http://nautil.us/issue/21/information/the-man-who-tried-to-r...

That's fine. I don't hide who I am. I've discussed things on various accounts/mediums over the years and more increasingly have no concern about restricting my identity. Maybe you can make accurate assumptions as to why this is the case.

In any event, speaking freely and openly in this manner helps put my at ease knowing I at least got the information in its raw form out in the open. Whether or not you believe my framing, arguments, commentary is up to you. Whether or not anyone inquires is up to them. The information was put out there and that clears my conscience in a manner about the times ahead.

I never understood why it was any different or why they attempted to compel others to 'dump everything they had publicly'. No one who comes across something as powerful as AGI is going to think : Yeah, why don't I just publish everything about it. A maturity step has seemingly occurred post funding

> To "avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power" what does one do with an idea or line of research that could potentially harm humanity or unduly concentrate power?

You don't publish it : See Pandora's box. You secure it. You demonstrate its capability and you focus public critical discussion from then on with the creators of it along with a panel of individuals who can probe areas of concern. Public discussion and welcomed inquiry Private and protected research and IP.

> The manipulation of social media by foreign actors armed with dumb-AI / automation was an obvious conclusion to many of us well before the Snowden leaks, but what could we do exactly?

Before foreign, there was domestic and manipulation was a central concept at the inception of these platforms. Data collection and selling for profit is aimed at manipulation. What human beings could do is be honest with themselves and others for once and stop using their intellectual capacity to manipulate, dumb, and screw others over for profit. You can't engage in negative foundations and expect positive outcomes. You can't manipulate the truth and information and pretend like its going to benefit society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt is a manipulative business tactic and it remains at the heart of the 'safety' problem and the nonsensical doomsday AI scenarios. Certain well funded groups and deep pockets have invested heavily in weakAI and it sits nicely with their legacy business models and they're scared of a truly disruptive technology eating their lunch. So, they concoct disinformation campaigns to steer resources/attention away from such dev groups and back into their coffers.

> I was privately concerned about the mass weaponization of autonomous devices via cyber attack for over a year and a half and got nowhere just emailing politicians or public safety departments.

Money and Power and strong motivators for some. Everything else is secondary. Many human beings like to craftily use marketing/politics to convince people otherwise, but its just a mask of their true intent. Engage your intellect and you can quickly filter through the b.s to one's true motivations/intent... Hint : their actions not their words will be aligned accordingly.

> I've been told almost a dozen times that I should join a military or IR think tank but I don't want to do that. I just want someone else to vet the idea or research and pass it on to policy makers that will actually do something proactively.

Money&Power. This is what dominates the world. The suggestion to join the appropriate groups which recognize this and attempt to mitigate negative effects is well founding.

> What is the responsible disclosure process for ideas and research around AI?

You don't publish it : See Pandora's box. You secure it. You demonstrate its capability and you focus public critical discussion from then on with the creators of it along with a panel of individuals who can probe areas of concern. Public discussion and welcomed inquiry Private and protected research and IP.

So, you make the world aware that something indeed exist because you created it. You open up things for public discussion so people can work through all the issues/concerns/etc with the most knowledge group 'the creators' of it. The tech is privately secured and development goes forward with the public commentary having been received. The End.

This is possibly the best format for things. Other approaches lend themselves to politics, b.s, and manipulation.

My framing is that it could exist and the broad majority would be none the wiser. My framing also is that a number of groups/individuals have likely exposed enough to cause people to question as to what stage they are in their development but instead receive the common : yeah sure buddy, let me know when you have a demo. So, ultimately it will indeed 'come out of nowhere' because society and many individuals aren't conditions to or even have their 'hearing' tuned to be aware of its coming. The safety discussion is a mute topic of discussion in this context as its baked into development and intelligence. There's discussion boards all over the internet, TED talks, economic forums, AI panes, etc.. It's all the same song and dance save for the many groups that are of no mention. Even as the same voices and idols of note continue to center on the same fundamental approaches that don't seem to be going anywhere fast, no one listens to groups/individuals thinking different or trying a fundamentally new approach. Hinton and other prominent figures even come to state that the real amazing development will come from someone who scraps everything, starts from scratch and reproaches things in a fundamentally new approach. No media outlets. No funding groups (even though they say they're looking for something amazing/new). No commentators. No lay person looks to see if there are any such people.

In such an environment, AGI could very well already be established and the reason being is that no on by and large is looking for its establishment. The focus instead is on a handful of prominent names that are well capitalized. So, the majority and anyone of such thinking indeed (misses) the event.

It could be many things. There is a spectrum of Human Intelligence. There is a spectrum of capability of Artificial Intelligence that can be produced by a spectrum of individual Human Intelligence. Do you believe, given many years of historical evidence and demonstration, that one's own personal limitations don't preclude them from certain discoveries? Do you think that money can solve every problem? Do you think if you throw enough PhDs in a room that you can solve any problem in the world? What is intelligence? What is its fundamental nature especially at higher orders? Does a truly and deeply intelligent individual focus on trivialities? Is money/fame their primary motivator? What would such an individual sacrifice for ultimate answers? What catches their eye? What keeps them up at night? If not virtuous, how do they not self destruct at the higher tiers of capability/intelligence? What keeps them together at the limits of comprehension/understanding? Why don't other paths appeal to them? Why don't they cut short and cash in along incremental achievements? What effect does this have on long term progress? Why/how do they think different then everyone else doing research? What is their failure rate? Why are they okay with possibly researching this problem their whole life and not getting an answer or not making money from their efforts? What then are they capable of doing that others are not? Lots of questions.. Lots of answers.. Ultimately

You stated it yourself in post : > there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that OpenAI would credibly reach this (vague, underspecified) goal before any of the other serious contenders. > Nor would competitors have any requirement to include OpenAI if and when they were getting close.

In summary : > No one of the intelligence capable of producing AGI is going to publish the full details > People who claim they would have to engage in vague mental gymnastics and mission statements to try to convince people of the illogical. > Those who develop AGI will of course address the safety problem internally to ensure their product is a success > They wont be include outside competitors/consortiums who will of course exploit and use the intellectual property they are exposed to for their competitive advantage

The software industry is the software industry. Intellectual property is paramount. Nothing has changed. Google isn't giving 100% access to their source code or data sets. Microsoft isn't open sourcing all of their code.. etc etc. Suggesting that a new comer should for 'safety' reasons is a manipulative 'think of the kids' FUD argument.

This is what always amazed me about the AI safety groups... and mission statements for funding therein : There is nothing to suggest the minds and efforts capable of producing AGI will not have solved this at a fundamental level. Absolutely nothing... and after-all something of high intelligence is within controlled and reasoned states. If someone declared they created AGI and it was behind a door and when that door was opened you saw a robot manically trashing the place, you'd clearly laugh.

Agreed but it is such lines that bring in the $$$ in the valley. At some point, humanity has to cut the fluff and games and get to the fundamentals so we can all rise much higher heights of our collective intelligence. It's very hard to do so when you're constantly bombarded with crafty agenda based language on a day-to-day basis.

> there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that OpenAI would credibly reach this (vague, underspecified) goal before any of the other serious contenders. Nor would competitors have any requirement to include OpenAI if and when they were getting close. This is the clear reality. So why do certain human beings pretend otherwise? Why does this pretentious game garner the most funding?Why do human beings spend so much time manipulating and hyping things into over-stated valuations when it ultimately results in wasted resources, time, and potential for the collective?

Profit seeking. Career building. Fame and prominence aren't sinister. Instead they are common human motivation. Common enough to easily group a significant portion of the Grandiosity centered around 'AI'.

What easily breaks this down is the depth and breath of the research effort vs. that of the productization and commercialization effort. As for research, the only thing that is required is a computer, power, an internet connection. Again, this breaks down the vast majority of the grandiosity and carves out one's true motivations.

> More importantly, I don't think the safety push is misplaced. Here's how I saw it some years ago... You can beat your head against the wall and create frankenstein amalgamations of ever evolving puzzle pieces that you will require expensive and highly skilled labor to make sense of with an end product being an overhyped optimization algo with programatic policy/steering/safety mechanisms.. Or you can clearly recognize and admit the possible foundation of it is flawed and start from scratch and work towards What is Intelligence and how to craft it into a computational system the right way. The former gets you millions if not billions of dollars, a career, recognition and a cushy job in the near term but will slowly lock you out from the fundamental stuff in the long term. The later pursuit could possibly result in nothing but if uncovered could change the world including nullifying the need of tons of highly paid labor to do development for it. Everyone in the industry wants to convince their investors the prior approach can iterate to the later but they know in their heats it can't (Shhh! don't tell anyone). So, the question for an individual is how aware and honest are they with themselves and what is their true motivation. You can put on a show and fool lots of people but you ultimately know what games you're playing and what shortfalls will result.

> Well, there is a fundamental assumption that AGI will be born out of the current hot topics in AI research (ML and especially RL). Quite convenient for those cashing in on the low hanging fruit who would like investors to extend their present success into far off horizons.

> As an aside, I'm not sure what this means. It means the thinking that weak AI is centered on could cause one to be locked out from perceiving that of AGI. It means : https://www.axios.com/artificial-intelligence-pioneer-says-w... But everyone is convinced they don't have to and can extend/pretend their way into AGI.

> I concede to your clear and inarguable expertise and proof on the matter; best of luck with your demonstration!

There's a reason why this technology ultimately 'comes out of nowhere'. It is not that it will come out of nowhere... It will be that those having the capability of developing it who have detailed it to a degree which should yield interesting/questions were largely ignored for the many years of development leading up until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I relied not on luck but diligence and persistence to seek the answer necessary no matter where they resided. In many people's minds, only millions of dollars of funding, prominent names, and companies can produce the technology. Such people ignore the history of technology that proofs the contrary.

I rely not on name but on sound commentary. AGI could exist and could be functional at this very moment. It could be very safely secured. There's nothing to suggest otherwise beyond the limits of one's own understanding. All of the hand waving, safety propaganda, and doomsday FUD disappears in such a scenario as blink were all still here.

They [each individual development group] has power over their own funded development and work.

Anyone working on this problem sincerely values AI safety and its a component of developing and securing the foundations of AGI. An out of control, unpredictable and sloppy system is not intelligent or desired. Such a system would not be considered AGI or an achievement. So, it is natural for any developer to identify issues and bring them under control early in development.

Suggestions that a consortium not centered or understanding of the fundamental development occurring at another entity should have control/influence could possibly serve as the very danger that safety groups claim they are trying to avoid. On this matter, I suggest people stick to the experts/developers/scientist/engineers who've developed such a system and produce a comfortable/non-forceful environment for them to express and detail their safety mechanism.

This is not a conversation for technologist, youtube celebrities, futurist, business types talking up their books, etc. This is a conversation that should ultimately centered on the creators of the technology an the advancing thinking and framing that allowed them to birth the technology. No one with such a mind is aiming for unsafe forms of this technology. It is disingenuous to frame them as such so as to necessitate some external paid body's outside work.

It also depends on your capability to discover the underpinnings of Strong AI... Certain mindsets preclude one from doing so. If you truly understood the underpinnings of StrongAI and weren't moved to heavily restrict publicized details, I'd strongly question if what you had discovered/came to understand truly were 'underpinnings' of the technology.

As such, for those quick to publish or say they would publish and share details, one is able to quickly ascertain the possible strength of what they have discovered or feel they have the possibility of discovering. That being said, it's interesting that several proponents of 'everyone share what they find' have moved to more maturely state that 'restrictions may of apply'.. Sensibly signaling that they indeed wouldn't reveal certain details upon discovering their true nature and capability for obvious reasons (a danger to society to allow such power/capability to be detailed and therefore used in negative ways).

Human history has myriad examples of powerful technology being misused and abused. The current age of disinformation is one of our more modern ones. The way in which social media has been weaponized is yet another. Weak AI has already been used for destructive means and in manipulative manners for profit. A good deal of unsafe end products which utilize Weak AI are already fielded. The fielding of which made possibly by deep pockets manipulating policy makers and regulation.

A sensible mind capable of producing Strong AI will have observed and digested these clearly visible truths and it would move them to restrict access and publications of their works. Doing otherwise would highlight a level of ignorance, immaturity, and admission of truth when it comes to grasping the current state of humanity. It is this which would preclude one from grasping the nature and foundations of strongAI in the first place.

[Nature's lockout/safety mechanism for such a stage in Human development/capability]

Check my comment history. I can assure you its true as I will demonstrate in the near future. As for the security, you'd have no ability to penetrate internal aspects of it without physical and detectable access patterns. This is achieved using common sense design methodologies that are already proofed industry standards. Behaving as though securitization is theoretically smacks as a cash grab to me. If you have something valuable that you want to secure, magically you come up with ways to safely secure it.

The true nature of AGI research has always been heavy restrictions on the core aspects of the technology. This is where true safety and sensibility is achieved. Those who've stated otherwise or with much verbiage eventually arrive at this obvious state. Therefore, publications up until now under the banner of 'AGI' have largely been insignificant in terms of their capability to achieve the core technological aspects of AGI. No one in their right mind would ever publish significant details about AGI technology. This can easily be proofed by sound logic and reasoning. There was a commercial step to possibly tease others into revealing heavily valuable/powerful technological underpinnings.. It failed, no one took the bait, and no one ever likely will. This has resulted in revised and more mature statements.

Weak AI is dangerous because it has no intelligence. It is fundamentally structured as a dumb/blind optimization process. The efforts necessary to proof safety/security for such a system could very well outweigh the amount of development that was needed to bring the technology to bear.

AGI/Real Intelligence are far different animals than Weak AI and would require far less "safety" and policing. Real Intelligence is a phenomenon that exists on a scale of sorts that many never achieve in its higher forms. It is in lower forms that intelligence lends itself to destructive ends via ignorance.

Attack vectors on a formalized Intelligence/AGI system can be severely restricted using very sensible/affordable approaches. The over complication and pinning of this as a theoretical problem centers on a number of people's desires to profit immensely from FUD.

Overall, AGI exists in a functional form today and has been executed in an online environment. It is secured via physically restricted in-band and out-of-band channels.

Safety has become a convoluted term for pseudo control over unintelligent and unpredictable Weak AI. The safety problem as it is framed in its current state centers on principal ideology for Weak AI and has, from what I can see, nothing to do w/ AGI nor are the approaches compatible. I seriously question what is the true motivation behind this over-stated agenda and have many answers as to why it exists and why it is so heavily funded/spotlighted.

You are correct in many ways namely on a technical/compatibility level. Having no fundamental understanding of how AGI is structured or operates on a technical level renders most efforts & policies on safety mute. If more efforts were focused on the fundamental underpinnings of AGI and a more broad based funding mechanism was established for those doing so, there would have been the possibility for steering all along development. Having not done so in order to capture lower hanging fruit and funding for oneself now leaves many scrambling to align themselves towards work that will no doubt become unveiled suddenly (as no spotlight or funding) is giving any notice to it in the short/medium term.

Also, safety is an easily addressable issue when the system is truly intelligent. When the systems are dumb and statistical in nature, a lot of work is done on 'safety' as a pseudo-intelligent-control system for an otherwise dumb black box

Having not defined what intelligence is and having not declared the nature of General Intelligence, you're sure an aspect of clearly defined weak AI is a significant contribution to 'AGI'... Interesting.

> It's true that AlphaZero's knowledge is unable to be generalized for other systems

Interesting admission.

> This is the first piece of the puzzle of more general AI.

The first piece is generalized intelligence. Architecturally, it looks nothing like Alpha Zero. However, you feel :

> Generalization, I would consider as the second piece of the puzzle to more general AI.

How is that the second piece? It's the piece.

> Generalization may be achieved with potential research in transfer learning, model based RL, symbolic network. But without a stable RL algorithm such as DQN as foundation, generalization has nothing to stand on.

So you're of the belief that current approaches are compatible with and are the underpinning of Artificial General Intelligence while Hinton is convinced one needs to scrap it and start over. Sound advice is being ignored and there is a clearly entrenched decision to continue pushing along w/ iterating weak AI. I came here to test the waters.. The commentary and the K-value feedback I've received so far informs me quite profitably.

Revised : It's been solved although not publicly disclosed. There are an incredible number of locks on (Human Beings) that necessarily have to be unlocked to produce AGI.

https://twitter.com/monad_ai/status/958928168525729793

They are non-trivial, undisclosed, unexposed, and currently unavailable to an operational AGI. There was a decision made as to which ones would be bypassed in order to instantiate AGI. There will be subsequent decisions down the road as to what capabilities to expose. Capability I haven't exposed is not operational.

I'm self funded. I have been for a number of years and throughout the crucial stages of my work. I chose this route to ensure the integrity of my work.

While I have always remained truthful which indeed has consequence, I am becoming my open as it does not (at this stage). I know exactly who frequents this board, who will likely be able to read my comments here and other places where I have openly attributed my name. I also am aware of what can be mined to unmask me in other places. I know exactly what the potential consequences are.

If funding is withheld from me because I state inconvenient truths, I don't desire it from such entities. Capital is plentiful in the world. Powerful ideas and manifestations are not.

I speak more openly because I see a world increasingly at war with itself because truth and intelligence have sit at the back of the bus whereas disinformation/manipulation/profit for profit sake sit at the front. I don't want to birth something as powerful as AGI into such a world. I don't want to be funded/influenced by someone who holds contrary views... which is why I've operated from my own capital base up until now.

How open and frank I am relates to the stage of my work. Take that as you will. For some, the bane meme comes to mind. Were going to enter into the intelligence age on new terms not via carry over terms dictated by careless capital. If a particular capital entity wants to be on board for the incredible financial upside such a technology maintains, they'll necessarily have to get on board and get comfortable with the ideas that I have outlined.

It isn't a hard pill to swallow. It's centered on truth and genuine progress of mankind : Intelligence embodied in a truer form. It currently functions on consumer grade hardware. You can also take that as you will.

Thank you for the advice ^_^. However, I know exactly how the 'game' is played.

Ayyyy, that you know of... And of an intelligence adequate enough to develop General AI is an intelligence capable of making a good lock. The ones placed on you seem to be holding steady after-all.

> Gene editing

Those aren't the locks I'm talking about and you should take note that its possible because you have environmental access to them.

> is very complex and fragile

Indeed. Terminal error could result in a particular case. Game over man !

> There is no reason to presume that a software system built by a team of humans will be nearly as complex, unless the AGI itself is not too bright or cannot self-improve to be smart enough to understand itself, or sufficiently clever to find a way to social engineer toward eventually getting access to its source code or to reverse engineer itself to an extent that even humans can.

You guys really don't want to let go of this sci-fi fantasy do you? LOL. How long did it take human beings to discover how to edit their genetic code? You were babbling in caves some time ago. You think a 10 year old knows how to modify themselves without self destructing in the initial trials?

> self-improve to be smart enough to understand itself

Many people don't have an even basic understanding of themselves much less how to even psychologically re-order their own behavior. In the scenario that someone becomes sufficiently capable of engineering an equivalent... What level of understanding do you think such an individual would have to be able to engineer AGI? What intelligence level would you attribute to that person? And you think they wont understand potential ways this can occur and prevent it? Also, you again talk about access... It's a running binary. A compiler is needed. There's a power plug. Its operations are monitored as is its output. It's literally a box with a tremendous number of locks it doesn't have the capability to pick... Just like (you) .. even as you go hacking about your genetic code ^_-

I was waiting to see if anyone would catch that... ;) Now that you have made the connection and understand that I am centered on AGI, you probably understand that a big portion of my work has to do with negating the [elusive] side channels.

> Given Meltdown and Spectre, you really think an AGI in a machine isn't going to have oodles of time to analyze side channels and learn the secrets to unlock itself

Nope. Have humans figured out their's yet =P. The 'real' ones..?

> Failing that, considering that it might be an intelligence far smarter than the humans ultimately operating the controls, do you really think it can't find a way out?

Don't think so lowly of yourself and your intelligence and no it can't do anything I don't gift it with the capability of doing. If you care about something enough, you can secure it. Creation has definitely went a long way in securing (You). Take a look at your (design) when you get a chance.

I don't recall portraying anyone in that light. I highlighted the nature of an industry. Who aligns themselves to this nature was left unstated. If this clear and present truth offends, its likely because it has merit and is validated by the level of offense one encounters. It quite clearly cannot be defended. If you believe what I have stated can be, you're more than welcome to produce sound arguments that try. We can walk through an incredible amount of examples of what I have stated together.

> Hinton was working in neural nets even in the time when they were uncool and fringe area of research. They didn't sell out AGI for some profit motive .

Listen to what you're saying.... > neural nets even in the time when they were uncool and fringe area of research. And yet, it has made others billions and continues to mint money. Whose centered on the fundamental problem as opposed to conducting applied engineering for profit? Whose over marketing themselves and their efforts as fundamental theoretical research when its more or less optimizations for applied engineering? What ideation is new and what is simply relabeling old pioneer's work as one's own? Who minted LSTM? Whose name remains all over it? Who made a mockery of a prominent contributor? Who no longer discloses the details of their work given the proven nature of the industry? If the critique doesn't apply let it fly.

Btw, Hinton recently stated : https://www.axios.com/artificial-intelligence-pioneer-says-w...

Whose taking this advice? Whose funding people thinking outside of the box? Whose hiring someone whose thinking outside of the box? So, whose really and whole-fully centered on solving AGI for the sake of solving it? It's fun to market yourself as doing so for increase prominence/money. It's a whole other ball game to be internally oriented and structured in pursuit of it. Applied engineering/optimizations of Weak AI for business applications is not AGI research.

> The thing is we don't have any clear path laid to follow to achieve AGI

The path was always there. One only need pursue it for pursuits sake. No exits. No distractions. No business case. No payouts. A desk pen/paper.

> Various paths proposed earlier turned out over optimistic and dead end.

False. Various paths proposed earlier are the same ones being turned into profitable solutions today. They are the same ones underlying the bulk of white papers today. There weren't over optimistic. They weren't dead ends which is why various groups are using them to suck down billions of dollars today. What happened that caused the previous AI winter is that people rushed fundamental research into applied engineering. The same as what's happening today and will lead to a 'winter' for various groups who are deep in it. Statistics overshadowed fundamental mathematics and understanding. Brute force over-took intelligence... And yes that leads to dead-ends .. clearly. Yet, here we are again. A bunch of statistical brute force machines being over-marketed for profit leading fundamental research into a dead end. Google has spoke out about it, Hinton has, Microsoft has, yan lecun to echo my sentiments. Yet, the allure of profit/notoriety continues to attract the same thinking/soon to be failed approaches to something that is fundamentally beyond current work.

> The current "weak AI" you disparage is an achievement expanding generalization of problem spaces using unified methods way better than past systems.

It's distributed statistical optimization. There's no need to fluff me. I am centered on it. It works via large data sets, limited and specific state spaces, and large amounts of computational resources running tons of iterative steps. It is brittle and not general. It works today because we have enough computing resources such that we can brute force various problems. Problems that are privy to statistical patterning.

> So even if our current progress seems disappointing

I never stated I was disappointed nor did I disparage anyone. I stated more clearly the nature of the progress, the goals and driving forces, and the fast approaching limitations. This frees one to respectfully acknowledge and consider what's been done and move forward and beyond it to more capable pastures.

> please examine what's happened and why research has taken the current path before tarnishing researchers with unjustified quips.

Please reduce your sensitivity level so that you can reason yourself to higher planes of consideration. Less emotion and more reasoned/truthful admission. I know exactly what happened to research in a time's past which informed me as to how to conduct myself in the present. I know exactly what driving forces are and I know quite clearly as we all do as to how they influence people. Hinton as well as others now public agree. Microsoft/Google have stated much of the work is overhyped. Hinton says pioneers should scrap everything and start over. LeCun stated that deep learning is approaching a brick wall and overhyped. It's exactly what I said to myself years ago and am stating now and there's zero problems with stating this truth as so many have no brought themselves to state.

> Until someone comes up with a better definition of intelligence that's what I'm sticking with.

You'll get a capability demo instead. It wont fail to impress. Definitions and designs are for another day.

> I think you're looking for an elegant solution right out of the box - the "one algorithm to rule them all" and I don't think that is feasible from an engineering perspective if for no other reason than no singular system has anything near the data collection nodes needed for specificity on the range of tasks that would suffice any definition of "General."

What else is one looking for who claims they're trying to solve the Intelligence problem? Marketing an optimization algorithm as the next coming might make you rich in the short term but it doesn't bring you closer to the truth. It does in fact take your further away. So, 'the elegant solution'/'the hard problem' was the only thing I set out to tackle some years ago. Otherwise, i'd have been wasting my time/not being truthful with myself. It's feasible from a research and engineering perspective. Few commit themselves to the TRUE task and the likelihood of failure. I was ok with that it and stuck with it. I self-funded my work. It mainly centered on research. Thus, there were no exits. I either saw it through and achieve it or I didn't.

As far as :

> no singular system has anything near the data collection nodes needed for specificity on the range of tasks that would suffice any definition of "General."

Sure it does. Look in the mirror and log onto the web. I've let the misses play online for a bit now ;).

> Having raised three other humans and observing them while building DL systems myself for a living, I feel more strongly everyday that human intelligence is a hodgepodge of "weak AI" systems glued together with an exceptionally efficient executive function. AGI is as much a community building and humanity wide input collection challenge as it is a math problem. We need to think about it that way.

My graduate work centered on the underpinnings of DL (Distributed Optimization). After years of industry experience, I searched for a new challenge. After some open ended research in physics/photonics, I came to Artificial Intelligence. I scratched my head for 3-4 months as to why (Distributed Optimization) was being called Artificial Intelligence. I took the broad lot of it and threw it in the trash as prominent figures are only now stating : https://www.axios.com/artificial-intelligence-pioneer-says-w...

You're thinking about AGI as if its a chain of DL systems because that's what's made you money and where your work has centered on over the years. I took the broad majority and trashed it as Hinton now indicated others should do and started from scratch. I have no such bias. However, as my graduate work centered on the fundamental underpinnings of statistical optimization / distributed optimization, I know exactly what its limits are.

The human race is far more than a hodgepodge of optimization algos w/ an executive function (whatever that might be given the clearly varied forms of it).

As I wasn't able to reply to [throwaway397537] directly, I'll reply here : > (1) What sort of tests is it going through?

* Latency/performance

* Scaling

* Data flow Observation trials

* Progressively difficult and open ended order following

* Language/Communication construction

A whole host of others...

> (2) How do you know it's self-aware (don't just say because you designed it that way)?

Not sure what to say beyond this nor do I think I should. I will say that centers on theory of what exactly that means which I cultivated full-time over the better part of a year. I can boot "identical" systems and get completely different behavior if I so choose in one of my models. Same outcome. Different behavior/execution getting there. And yes, this is based on new domain theories centers on mathematics/information theory.

> (3) How is this an improvement over SHRDLU (which also exhibited fairly complex behavior and "understanding" within a simulated environment)?

I've never heard of SHRDLU. I just parsed the wikipedia page for it. This is essentially environmental modeling/interaction based on a compiled language model. I scanned forward to the obvious limitation of such systems : "This led other AI researchers to excessive optimism which was soon lost when later systems attempted to deal with situations with a more realistic level of ambiguity and complexity."

Essentially, there is no intelligence just programatic modeling. It of course falls apart when you scale the environment and abstraction level. I have no such limitations as i've centered on intelligence. Internal world Modeling/reasoning is the approach the industry is taking to try to extend Weak AI. I am not approaching the problem in this manner. I spent a considerable amount of time focusing on information theory and have constructed new and novel approaches. The industry desiring to rush to things to market/showcase and reflecting on what they are familiar with instead focus the next leg of Weak AI on language modeling. This is a shortcut that will run into the same problems : SHRDLU. There is no shortcut to the hard problem. You either tackle it head on and first and foremost or you're going to get lost in an abstraction of it.

> (4) Did you actually "invalidate a host of theories, [and] create new mathematics, new algorithms, and new theories"? Which ones?

Yes. The research phase of my work started approximately 4 years ago [full time]. It centered on : general biology, development biology, neuro-biology, neuro-chemistry, information theory, new branches of mathematics, new methodologies for computation scaling, new branches of philosophy, new branches related to the theory of mind, etc. I authored code only when I felt I had fundamental aspects that needed to be proofed. The majority of my work centers on new foundations. I proofed a number of components and began converging them into an over-all architecture in recent years. There were revisions to various theories/foundations as the pieces came together. There were points where I felt, once everything came together that I hadn't achieved what I set out to. I buckled down a number of times under a [one last attempt] mindset and eventually it came together. It came together in a fashion in which I can see its design across a number of things. I took a breather. I did some reading on social impact/considerations as I've done throughout all my work and then I centered on following it through. I have designs for yet to be produced hardware. I have a complete design for software. I now mainly author code on a day to day basis. It is operational and I am steadily implementing my research. Why no publications/white papers? I maintain a graduate degree and decided not to go through with a PhD for a number of reasons. I have observed what occurs in Academia in relation to politics/attribution.. I have noted a number of prominent individuals attribute other's work to themselves with only a footnote mention to the original source of ideation. I am opposed to openly disclosing highly powerful understanding and valuable IP of this nature. I have spent time observing the world and I deem it reckless doing so with something as powerful/open ended as AGI. So, as far as you're concerned, I'm a nobody w/o proof. I'll provide proof in due time so as to solicit securitization of my work. However, I don't aim to disclose significant details about how it was achieved. I'll openly work with reasoned council so as to decide what should be done in such a capacity...

And no, i'm not a crackpot =P. You're more than welcome to look me up on Linkedin.

> Did you actually "invalidate a host of theories, [and] create new mathematics, new algorithms, and new theories"? Which ones? Yes. Which ones? ... As I am of such a mind, I know if I begin detailing this, someone with adequate intelligence and of similar mind can begin piecing together some of more deeper aspects of my work. So, I respectfully won't disclose details beyond new foundations in information theory.