It is up to humans to define the goals of an AGI, so that it will do
what
we want it to do.
Why must we define the goals of an AGI? What would be wrong with
setting
it
off with strong incentives to be helpful, even stronger incentives to
not
be
harmful, and let it chart it's own course based upon the vagaries of
the
world? Let it's only hard-coded goal be to keep it's satisfaction
above
a
certain level with helpful actions increasing satisfaction, harmful
actions
heavily decreasing satisfaction; learning increasing satisfaction, and
satisfaction naturally decaying over time so as to promote action . . .
.
Seems to me that humans are pretty much coded that way (with
evolution's
additional incentives of self-defense and procreation). The real trick
of
the matter is defining helpful and harmful clearly but everyone is
still
mired five steps before that.
----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Mahoney
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:52 AM
Subject: AGI goals (was Re: Information theoretic approaches to AGI
(was
Re:
[agi] The Necessity of Embodiment))
An AGI will not design its goals. It is up to humans to define the
goals
of
an AGI, so that it will do what we want it to do.
Unfortunately, this is a problem. We may or may not be successful in
programming the goals of AGI to satisfy human goals. If we are not
successful, then AGI will be useless at best and dangerous at worst. If
we
are successful, then we are doomed because human goals evolved in a
primitive environment to maximize reproductive success and not in an
environment where advanced technology can give us whatever we want. AGI
will
allow us to connect our brains to simulated worlds with magic genies,
or
worse, allow us to directly reprogram our brains to alter our memories,
goals, and thought processes. All rational goal-seeking agents must
have
a
mental state of maximum utility where any thought or perception would
be
unpleasant because it would result in a different state.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message ----
From: Valentina Poletti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 11:34:56 AM
Subject: Re: Information theoretic approaches to AGI (was Re: [agi] The
Necessity of Embodiment)
Thanks very much for the info. I found those articles very interesting.
Actually though this is not quite what I had in mind with the term
information-theoretic approach. I wasn't very specific, my bad. What I
am
looking for is a a theory behind the actual R itself. These approaches
(correnct me if I'm wrong) give an r-function for granted and work from
that. In real life that is not the case though. What I'm looking for is
how
the AGI will create that function. Because the AGI is created by
humans,
some sort of direction will be given by the humans creating them. What
kind
of direction, in mathematical terms, is my question. In other words I'm
looking for a way to mathematically define how the AGI will
mathematically
define its goals.
Valentina
On 8/23/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Valentina Poletti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering why no-one had brought up the information-theoretic
> aspect of this yet.
It has been studied. For example, Hutter proved that the optimal
strategy
of a rational goal seeking agent in an unknown computable environment
is
AIXI: to guess that the environment is simulated by the shortest
program
consistent with observation so far [1]. Legg and Hutter also propose
as
a
measure of universal intelligence the expected reward over a
Solomonoff
distribution of environments [2].
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.
Prediction is central to intelligence, as I argue in [3]. Legg proved
in
[4] that there is no elegant theory of prediction. Predicting all
environments up to a given level of Kolmogorov complexity requires a
predictor with at least the same level of complexity. Furthermore,
above
a
small level of complexity, such predictors cannot be proven because of
Godel
incompleteness. Prediction must therefore be an experimental science.
There is currently no software or mathematical model of
non-evolutionary
recursive self improvement, even for very restricted or simple
definitions
of intelligence. Without a model you don't have friendly AI; you have
accelerated evolution with AIs competing for resources.
References
1. Hutter, Marcus (2003), "A Gentle Introduction to The Universal
Algorithmic Agent {AIXI}",
in Artificial General Intelligence, B. Goertzel and C. Pennachin eds.,
Springer. http://www.idsia.ch/~marcus/ai/aixigentle.htm
2. Legg, Shane, and Marcus Hutter (2006),
A Formal Measure of Machine Intelligence, Proc. Annual machine
learning conference of Belgium and The Netherlands (Benelearn-2006).
Ghent, 2006. http://www.vetta.org/documents/ui_benelearn.pdf
3. http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/rationale.html
4. Legg, Shane, (2006), Is There an Elegant Universal Theory of
Prediction?,
Technical Report IDSIA-12-06, IDSIA / USI-SUPSI,
Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Galleria 2, 6928
Manno,
Switzerland.
http://www.vetta.org/documents/IDSIA-12-06-1.pdf
-- 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
--
A true friend stabs you in the front. - O. Wilde
Einstein once thought he was wrong; then he discovered he was wrong.
For every complex problem, there is an answer which is short, simple
and
wrong. - H.L. Mencken
________________________________
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
________________________________
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
________________________________
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
