Matt, What is your opinion on Goedel machines?
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/goedelmachine.html --Abram On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>These have profound impacts on AGI design. First, AIXI is (provably) not >>>computable, >>>which means there is no easy shortcut to AGI. Second, universal intelligence >>>is not >>>computable because it requires testing in an infinite number of >>>environments. Since >>>there is no other well accepted test of intelligence above human level, it >>>casts doubt on >>>the main premise of the singularity: that if humans can create agents with >>>greater than >>>human intelligence, then so can they. >> >>I don't know for sure that these statements logically follow from one >>another. > > They don't. I cannot prove that there is no non-evolutionary model of > recursive self improvement (RSI). Nor can I prove that there is. But it is a > question we need to answer before an evolutionary model becomes technically > feasible, because an evolutionary model is definitely unfriendly. > >>Higher intelligence bootstrapping itself has already been proven on >>Earth. Presumably it can happen in a simulation space as well, right? > > If you mean the evolution of humans, that is not an example of RSI. One > requirement of friendly AI is that an AI cannot alter its human-designed > goals. (Another is that we get the goals right, which is unsolved). However, > in an evolutionary environment, the parents do not get to choose the goals of > their children. Evolution chooses goals that maximize reproductive fitness, > regardless of what you want. > > I have challenged this list as well as the singularity and SL4 lists to come > up with an example of a mathematical, software, biological, or physical > example of RSI, or at least a plausible argument that one could be created, > and nobody has. To qualify, an agent has to modify itself or create a more > intelligent copy of itself according to an intelligence test chosen by the > original. The following are not examples of RSI: > > 1. Evolution of life, including humans. > 2. Emergence of language, culture, writing, communication technology, and > computers. > 3. A chess playing (or tic-tac-toe, or factoring, or SAT solving) program > that makes modified copies of itself by > randomly flipping bits in a compressed representation of its source > code, and playing its copies in death matches. > 4. Selective breeding of children for those that get higher grades in school. > 5. Genetic engineering of humans for larger brains. > > 1 fails because evolution is smarter than all of human civilization if you > measure intelligence in bits of memory. A model of evolution uses 10^37 bits > (10^10 bits of DNA per cell x 10^14 cells in the human body x 10^10 humans x > 10^3 ratio of biomass to human mass). Human civilization has at most 10^25 > bits (10^15 synapses in the human brain x 10^10 humans). > > 2 fails because individual humans are not getting smarter with each > generation, at least not nearly as fast as civilization is advancing. Rather, > there are more humans, and we are getting better organized through > specialization of tasks. Human brains are not much different than they were > 10,000 years ago. > > 3 fails because there are no known classes of problems that are provably hard > to solve but easy to verify. Tic-tac-toe and chess have bounded complexity. > It has not been proven that factoring is harder than multiplication. We don't > know that P != NP, and even if we did, many NP-complete problems have special > cases that are easy to solve, and we don't know how to program the parent to > avoid these cases through successive generations. > > 4 fails because there is no evidence that above a certain level (about IQ > 200) that childhood intelligence correlates with adult success. The problem > is that adults of average intelligence can't agree on how success should be > measured*. > > 5 fails for the same reason. > > *For example, the average person recognizes Einstein as a genius not because > they are > awed by his theories of general relativity, but because other people > have said so. If you just read his papers (without understanding their great > insights) and knew that he never learned to drive a car, you might conclude > differently. > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
