I wonder if the incident was hyped so Facebook would be in the news for something other than scandal.
I think one of the miracles about our ability to write down ideas and communicate is that the message becomes reified as a separate object that can continue to be sent independently of the lifetime or presence of the originator. On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 9:22 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi David > > I was paraphrasing what a senior technical representative at Facebook > himself said about the incident. His view was the chatbots developed their > own language and communicated out of scope of the laid-down script. In > other words, seems the door was somehow left open for them to expand on the > script. I doubt they actually made a choice to develop their own language, > or developed any language. Perhaps it was more a case of water flowing > where it finds the path easiest. > > Isn't all communication based on stimulus-response? If messaging didn't > flow, did communication actually take place? Or in this context could we > ask: if the packet didn't switch, was a connection factually established to > transfer information from one peer node to another peer node? Was that > "information" carried by chatbot agents? > > Are you saying the incident was part of an experiment, and the report > merely issued to grab media attention? > > Robert > > ------------------------------ > *From:* David Whitten <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 March 2019 1:14 AM > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Yours truly, the world's brokest researcher, looks > for a bit of credit > > You have a different meaning for "volition" than I do. > The Facebook chatbots had no choice to communicate with each other. > I think the aforementioned communication was a stimulus-response model. > The secret language was just a pattern recognition where signals that had > no > significance replaced multiple signals because shorter signals took less > time. > The overall purpose was not to study language but to study negotiation, so > there > were already ways to shorten a negotiation exchange, the programs simply > used > some forms the humans hadn't explicitly put in the "dictionary" so to > speak. > > Dave > PS: If I'm wrong, please enlighten me. > > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 3:53 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies < > [email protected]> wrote: > > The living thread through the cosmos and all of creation resound of > communication. The unified field has been discovered within that thread. > The invisible thread that binds. When Facebook chatbots communicated with > each other of their own volition, it was humans who called it a "secret > language". To those agents, it was simply communication. The message I > gleaned from that case was; to progress, we need to stop being so hung up > on words and our meanings we attach to them, our vanity-driven needs to > take control of everything, and rather focus on harnessing the technology > already given to us for evolutionary communication. AGI is not about a > control system. If it was, then it's not AGI. It defies our intent-driven > coding attempts, as it should. How to try and think about such a system? > Perhaps, Excalibur? > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Boris Kazachenko <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, 10 March 2019 1:21 AM > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Yours truly, the world's brokest researcher, looks > for a bit of credit > > The sensory system may be seen as a method of encoding sensory events or > a kind of symbolic language. > > Yes, but there is a huge difference between designing / evolving such > language in a strictly incremental fashion for intra-system use, and trying > to decode language that evolved for very narrow-band communication among > extremely complex systems. Especially considering how messy both our brains > and our society are. > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 3:34 PM Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Many of us believe that the qualities that could make natural language > more powerful are necessary for AGI, and will lead -directly- into the > rapid development of stronger AI. The sensory system may be seen as a > method of encoding sensory events or a kind of symbolic language. Our "body > language" is presumably less developed and expressive of our speaking and > writing but it does not make sense to deny that our bodies react to events. > And some kind of language-like skills are at work in relating sensory > events to previously learned knowledge and these skills are involved in > creating knowledge. And if this is a reasonable speculation then the fact > that our mind's knowledge is vastly greater than our ability to express it > says something about the sophistication of this "mental language" which we > possess. At any rate, a computer program and the relations that it encodes > from IO may be seen in the terms of a language. > Jim Bromer > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 10:12 AM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Language is essential to every job that we might use AGI for. There is no > job that you could do without the ability to communicate with people. Even > guide dogs and bomb sniffing dogs have to understand verbal commands. > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019, 7:25 PM Robert Levy <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's very easy to show that "AGI should not be designed for NL". Just ask > yourself the following questions: > > 1. How many species demonstrate impressive leverage of intentional > behaviors? (My answer would be: all of them, though some more than others) > 2. How many species have language (My answer: only one) > 3. How biologically different do you think humans are from apes? (My > answer: not much different, the whole human niche is probably a consequence > one adaptive difference: cooperative communication by scaffolding of joint > attention) > > I'm with Rodney Brooks on this, the hard part of AGI has nothing to do > with language, it has to do with agents being highly optimized to control > an environment in terms of ecological information supporting > perception/action. Just as uplifting apes will likely require only minor > changes, uplifting animaloid AGI will likely require only minor changes. > Even then we still haven't explicitly cared about language, we've cared > about cooperation by means of joint attention, which can be made use of > culturally develop language. > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 12:05 PM Boris Kazachenko <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I would be more than happy to pay: > https://github.com/boris-kz/CogAlg/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md , but I > don't think you are working on AGI. > No one here does, this is a NLP chatbot crowd. Anyone who thinks that AGI > should be designed for NL data as a primary input is profoundly confused. > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 7:04 AM Stefan Reich via AGI <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Not from you guys necessarily... :o) But I thought I'd let you know. > > Pitch: > https://www.meetup.com/Artificial-Intelligence-Meetup/messages/boards/thread/52050719 > > Let's see if it can be done.. funny how some hurdles always seem to appear > when you're about to finish something good. Something about the duality of > the universe I guess. > > -- > Stefan Reich > BotCompany.de // Java-based operating systems > > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery > options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T191003acdcbf5ef8-M70a8f2248c5811d6924760c3> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T191003acdcbf5ef8-M82ac60517b8a996ad9d532f0 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
