2008/6/30 Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Ben, > > I agree, an evolved design has limits too, but the key difference between a > contrived design and one that is allowed to evolve is that the evolved > critter's intelligence is grounded in the context of its own 'experience', > whereas the contrived one's intelligence is grounded in the experience of its > creator, and subject to the limitations built into that conception of > intelligence. For example, we really have no idea how we arrive at spontaneous > insights (in the shower, for example). A chess master suddenly sees the > game-winning move. We can be fairly certain that often, these insights are not > the product of logical analysis. So if our conception of intelligence fails > to explain these important aspects, our designs based on those conceptions > will > fail to exhibit them. An evolved intelligence, on the other hand, is not > limited in this way, and has the potential to exhibit intelligence in ways > we're not > capable of comprehending.
I'm seeking to do something half way between what you suggest (from bacterial systems to human alife) and AI. I'd be curious to know whether you think it would suffer from the same problems. First are we agreed that the von Neumann model of computing has no hidden bias to its problem solving capabilities. It might be able to do some jobs more efficiently than other and need lots of memory to do others but it is not particularly suited to learning chess or running down a gazelle. Which means it can be reprogrammed to do either. However it has no guide to what it should be doing, so can become virus infested or subverted. It has a purpose but we can't explicitly define it. So let us try and put in the most minimal guide that we can so we don't give it a specific goal, just a tendency to favour certain activities or programs. How to do this? Form and economy based on reinforcement signals, those that get more reinforcement signals can outbid the others for control of system resources. This is obviously reminiscent of tierra and a million and one other alife system. The difference being is that I want the whole system to exhibit intelligence. Any form of variation is allowed, from random to getting in programs from the outside. It should be able to change the whole from the OS level up based on the variation. I agree that we want the systems we make to be free of our design constraints long term, that is eventually correct all the errors and oversimplifications or gaps we left. But I don't see the need to go all the way back to bacteria. Even then you would need to design the system correctly in terms of chemical concentrations. I think both would count as the passive approach* to helping solve the problem, yours is more indirect than is needed I think. Will Pearson * http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg11399.html ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
