Consciosusness in Cognitive Architectures. A Principled Analysis of RCS, Soar and ACT-R

This report analyses the aplicability of the principles of consciousness developed in the ASys project to three of the most relevant cognitive architectures. This is done in relation to their aplicability to build integrated control systems and studying their support for general mechanisms of real-time consciousness.\ud To analyse these architectures the ASys Framework is employed. This is a conceptual framework based on an extension for cognitive autonomous systems of the General Systems Theory (GST).\ud A general qualitative evaluation criteria for cognitive architectures is established based upon: a) requirements for a cognitive architecture, b) the theoretical framework based on the GST and c) core design principles for integrated cognitive conscious control systems

Driven by Compression Progress: A Simple Principle Explains Essential Aspects of Subjective Beauty, Novelty, Surprise, Interestingness, Attention, Curiosity, Creativity, Art, Science, Music, Jokes

I argue that data becomes temporarily interesting by itself to some self-improving, but computationally limited, subjective observer once he learns to predict or compress the data in a better way, thus making it subjectively simpler and more beautiful. Curiosity is the desire to create or discover more non-random, non-arbitrary, regular data that is novel and surprising not in the traditional sense of Boltzmann and Shannon but in the sense that it allows for compression progress because its regularity was not yet known. This drive maximizes interestingness, the first derivative of subjective beauty or compressibility, that is, the steepness of the learning curve. It motivates exploring infants, pure mathematicians, composers, artists, dancers, comedians, yourself, and (since 1990) artificial systems.Comment: 35 pages, 3 figures, based on KES 2008 keynote and ALT 2007 / DS 2007 joint invited lectur

A New Constructivist AI: From Manual Methods to Self-Constructive Systems

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems has to date been largely one of manual labor. This constructionist approach to AI has resulted in systems with limited-domain application and severe performance brittleness. No AI architecture to date incorporates, in a single system, the many features that make natural intelligence general-purpose, including system-wide attention, analogy-making, system-wide learning, and various other complex transversal functions. Going beyond current AI systems will require significantly more complex system architecture than attempted to date. The heavy reliance on direct human specification and intervention in constructionist AI brings severe theoretical and practical limitations to any system built that way. One way to address the challenge of artificial general intelligence (AGI) is replacing a top-down architectural design approach with methods that allow the system to manage its own growth. This calls for a fundamental shift from hand-crafting to self-organizing architectures and self-generated code – what we call a constructivist AI approach, in reference to the self-constructive principles on which it must be based. Methodologies employed for constructivist AI will be very different from today’s software development methods; instead of relying on direct design of mental functions and their implementation in a cog- nitive architecture, they must address the principles – the “seeds” – from which a cognitive architecture can automatically grow. In this paper I describe the argument in detail and examine some of the implications of this impending paradigm shift

Simulating activities: Relating motives, deliberation, and attentive coordination

Activities are located behaviors, taking time, conceived as socially meaningful, and usually involving interaction with tools and the environment. In modeling human cognition as a form of problem solving (goal-directed search and operator sequencing), cognitive science researchers have not adequately studied “off-task” activities (e.g., waiting), non-intellectual motives (e.g., hunger), sustaining a goal state (e.g., playful interaction), and coupled perceptual-motor dynamics (e.g., following someone). These aspects of human behavior have been considered in bits and pieces in past research, identified as scripts, human factors, behavior settings, ensemble, flow experience, and situated action. More broadly, activity theory provides a comprehensive framework relating motives, goals, and operations. This paper ties these ideas together, using examples from work life in a Canadian High Arctic research station. The emphasis is on simulating human behavior as it naturally occurs, such that “working” is understood as an aspect of living. The result is a synthesis of previously unrelated analytic perspectives and a broader appreciation of the nature of human cognition. Simulating activities in this comprehensive way is useful for understanding work practice, promoting learning, and designing better tools, including human-robot systems