Re: [agi] Re: Can We Start P.S.
Hi Steve. WOW, could you send me a copy? Please ;-) I'll send you one to private mail when I get back to my computer, but you can find the papers on my webpage anyway. Could you give me enough to find them with Google? I would think that if there is a lot out there, that they would have one at WORLDCOMP, but I haven't seen any such thing there. The acronyms of the most popular conferences are LICS, ICALP, STACS, CSL, LPAR (and partially STOC and FOCS). Google will easily find them. Many of them have not only logic but algorithms as well, so you should be careful to pick the right papers - but this will be hard without some experience in theoretical computer science, as these are normally very technical papers often focused on a particular domain or logic. I list game theory as an advanced form of logic, but few real-world situations (outside of American football and some quick-reacting war strategy situations) are structured as Game Theory presumes. My interest is more in new forms of logic that are applicable to complex repair situations and real-world intractable disputes. Game theory might tell you how to fight, but seldom does it point the way to a peaceful resolution. What you write about game theory is false - classical game theory is very much concerned with studying cooperative situations and mechanisms to obtain peaceful outcomes. There is a recent good book on it by A.M. Brandenburger and B.J. Nalebuff called Co-opetition: this is a good non-technical reading. Many people give credit to game theory for the peaceful outcome of the cold war, so it surely has practical cooperative consequences. I'm not sure to what kind of introductory reading I can point you to, as I'm not sure what you want. Did you take university courses in logic and game theory? Starting with the basics really pays off, and nowadays for example cnx.org has a respectable first course in logic, so you can do it from home for starters. Lukasz --- 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=8660244id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: Can We Start P.S.
1. I (and my family) seem to be the only ones working on new systems of logic. This field has been nearly dormant for the last half-century, since ... Sorry Steve, but I recently defended a PhD thesis just in this field - analysis and development of logical systems. This is one of the main topics in logic in computer science, there are many international conferences about it, and yes - many people study the connections to game theory as well. Sorry to hear that you did not know anyone is doing it - it is a major research topic with many interesting results in the last 5 (and 50 as well) years. Lukasz P.S. For example, you can start with the recent book by Jouko Vaananen on Depencence Logic - this is a good example for the study of new logics connected to games. --- 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=8660244id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: Can We Start P.S.
Lukasz, On 7/11/08, Lukasz Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. I (and my family) seem to be the only ones working on new systems of logic. This field has been nearly dormant for the last half-century, since ... Sorry Steve, but I recently defended a PhD thesis just in this field - analysis and development of logical systems. WOW, could you send me a copy? Please ;-) This is one of the main topics in logic in computer science, there are many international conferences about it, Could you give me enough to find them with Google? I would think that if there is a lot out there, that they would have one at WORLDCOMP, but I haven't seen any such thing there. and yes - many people study the connections to game theory as well. I list game theory as an advanced form of logic, but few real-world situations (outside of American football and some quick-reacting war strategy situations) are structured as Game Theory presumes. Sorry to hear that you did not know anyone is doing it - it is a major research topic with many interesting results in the last 5 (and 50 as well) years. P.S. For example, you can start with the recent book by Jouko Vaananen on Depencence Logic - this is a good example for the study of new logics connected to games. My interest is more in new forms of logic that are applicable to complex repair situations and real-world intractable disputes. Game theory might tell you how to fight, but seldom does it point the way to a peaceful resolution. Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum may point the way to a peaceful resolution, but it seems to be unusable unless the parties first understand it. Figure 6 cause-and-effect chain analysis is great for stable situations, but is often clueless in dynamic situations. I wonder what ELSE is in this arena? Hyperlinks? Thanks a LOT for your thoughts here. Steve Richfield --- 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=8660244id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: Can We Start P.S.
Hey Steve, thanks for the clarifications! My point was that the operation of most interesting phenomena is NOT fully understood, but consists of various parts, many of which ARE understood, or are at least easily understandable. Given the typical figure 6 shape of most problematical cause-and-effect chains, many MAJOR problems can be solved WITHOUT being fully understood, by simply interrupting the process at two points, one in the lead-in from the root cause, and one in the self-sustaining loop at the end. This usually provides considerable choice in designing a cure. Of course this can't cure everything, but it WOULD cure ~90% of the illnesses that now kill people, fix most (though certainly not all) social and political conflicts, etc. Yep, totally agree. But according to what you state below, there exist some methods that would produce exact resulsts - given you understand the system completely. That is what I was arguing against. In many fields there are problems that are understood completely and yet are still unsolvable. We know exactly the formula for say, the Lorenz curves. Yet it is impossible to determine with any certainly a point a million iterations from now. That is because even a variation at the atomic level would change the result considerably. And if we observe such variation, we change it. It seems to be nature's nature that we can never know it with exacness. Unless we are talking mathematics of course.. but as someone already pointed out on this list, mathematics has little to do with the real world. As I explained above, many/most complex problems and conflicts can be fixed WITHOUT a full understanding of them, so your argument above is really irrelevant to my assertion. Yeh.. but i wasn't talking about such problems here. I was talking about problems you do have a full understanding of. For example see your statement: Random investment beats nearly all other methods. Not at all! There is some broadly-applicable logical principles that NEVER EVER fail, like Reductio ad Absurdum. Some of these are advanced and not generally known, even to people here on this forum, like Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum. Some conflicts require this advanced level of understanding for the participants to participate in a process that leads to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Why do you assume most people on this forum would not know/understand them? And how would you relate this to culture anyways? Yes, and THIS TOO is also one of those advanced concepts. If you ask a Palestinian about what the problem is in the Middle East, he will say that it is the Israelis. If you ask an Israeli, he will say that it is the Palestinians. If you ask a Kanamet (from the Twilight Zone show To Serve Man, the title of a cook book), he will say that the problem is that they are wasting good food. However, Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum methods can point the way to a solution that satisfies all parties. Hmm.. I guess I just don't see how. Could you be a lil more specific? :) In short, you appear to be laboring under the most dangerous assumption of all - that man's efforts to improve his lot and address his problems is at all logical. It is rarely so, as advanced methods often suggest radically different and better approaches. Throwing AGIs into the present social mess would be an unmitigated disaster, of the very sorts that you suggest. When you say 'man' do you include yourself as well? ;) I hope not.. I don't assume that: Yet you seem to assume that the methods you have are better than anybody else's for any field. --- 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=8660244id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: Can We Start P.S.
Valentina, On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I explained above, many/most complex problems and conflicts can be fixed WITHOUT a full understanding of them, so your argument above is really irrelevant to my assertion. Yeh.. but i wasn't talking about such problems here. I was talking about problems you do have a full understanding of. For example see your statement: Random investment beats nearly all other methods. This has been carefully studied and is now believed to be well understood. Then resulted in the invention of contrarian investment strategies, about where there are now a number of good books. In a nutshell, by the time that an industry-wide opinion develops, all of the smart money has already taken advantage of the opportunity (or lack thereof), so things can only go the opposite way. Not at all! There is some broadly-applicable logical principles that NEVER EVER fail, like Reductio ad Absurdum. Some of these are advanced and not generally known, even to people here on this forum, like Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum. Some conflicts require this advanced level of understanding for the participants to participate in a process that leads to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Why do you assume most people on this forum would not know/understand them? I look at feedback and comments, which seem to presume lack of this understanding. And how would you relate this to culture anyways? An interesting question, and one that I am still considering... Dr. Eliza doesn't do much that people shouldn't also be able to do - but for prior shitforbrains social programming. Yes, and THIS TOO is also one of those advanced concepts. If you ask a Palestinian about what the problem is in the Middle East, he will say that it is the Israelis. If you ask an Israeli, he will say that it is the Palestinians. If you ask a Kanamet (from the Twilight Zone show To Serve Man, the title of a cook book), he will say that the problem is that they are wasting good food. However, Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum methods can point the way to a solution that satisfies all parties. Hmm.. I guess I just don't see how. Could you be a lil more specific? :) If you DEEPLY examine the positions by drilling WAY down into the collective thought process, you find flaws in each sufficient to drive a common solution through. I have written longer posts on this in the past. To illustrate: 1. The Koran teaches to respect Jewdiasm and Christianity, so Jews SHOULD be able to live pretty much as they please in a Muslim society. 2. Israel claims legitimacy by UN decree, but where did the UN ever get the authority to carve a new state from an existing state? OK, so they have their state, but where does any government get the right to confiscate land without payment? OK, so they have confiscated the land, isn't this a PUBLIC asset and hence just as available to ANY inhabitant whether Israeli or Palestinian? 3. The Kanamets just want ANY peaceful solution, so they will be pleased by anything that is OK with both Israelis and Palestinians. In short, if either side actually respected the religions that they claim, then the other side should be able to live therein without problems. The problem is a population that attends mosques/synagogues but has never actually READ the entirety of their respective religious documents, as I have. Note that we have the same problems here in America, where our representatives are only too eager to set our Constitution aside as convenient. Christians believe as much or more in their Doctors as they do in Jesus, etc. In short, you appear to be laboring under the most dangerous assumption of all - that man's efforts to improve his lot and address his problems is at all logical. It is rarely so, as advanced methods often suggest radically different and better approaches. Throwing AGIs into the present social mess would be an unmitigated disaster, of the very sorts that you suggest. When you say 'man' do you include yourself as well? ;) I hope not.. I don't assume that: Yet you seem to assume that the methods you have are better than anybody else's for any field. This has two levels of response: 1. I (and my family) seem to be the only ones working on new systems of logic. This field has been nearly dormant for the last half-century, since the introduction of Game Theory. A notable exception has been in the field of economics, where new methods are being regularly developed, some with potential application outside of economics. 2. Perhaps you have read the book Smart Drugs co-authored by my good friend (and another past-president of The Smart Life Forum) Stephen Fowkes? This book (and Fowkes' research) addresses various pharmacological approaches to enhancing brain function. Of course, these drugs only make temporary metabolic changes, so I engineered a related approach to make similar changes permanent. I was forced into
Re: [agi] Re: Can We Start P.S.
Steve: MT:My general point is that the proper business of AGI is problematic, open, ill-structured problems (real world problems) for which ANY predetermined method or structure of problem-solving is wrong, (or since there is no right or wrong with such problems, superineffective) - and which usually demand (unstructured) investigation of the relevant environment to find fresh options and evidence. Steve:I hear you, but I don't believe these to actually exist, except in some (unstructured) people's minds. Can you exhibit one such problem for dissection and discussion? Steve: -Write me a program that will make producing a multimedia essay - video/graphics/text/sound/etc. - easy and fast for almost everyone. -Talk to me about your father.for three minutes. -Write an essay on the meaning of life. -Tidy up your room -Have sex with your partner. -Have a daydream about having sex with Madonna or some celebrity. -Outline a political strategy to improve McCain's chances. -Compose a story about an AGI going berserk in a totally new way. -Surf on the web for the next 10 mins. ANY formal creative problem - -how is memory laid down in the brain? -invent an electric battery that will be half the price of the cheapest one available -find the solution for the theory of everything in physics -devise an additional branch of metacognition to go beyond logic COMMENT: All of these problems you can deal with, and start to think about. But you do not have complete structures - conscious or intuitive - for thinking about any of them. It will be extraordinary if you don't grope about quite a bit and get stuck for a while in trying to solve them - as I'm sure you're aware if you cast your mind back to any creative or programming or essaywriting thinking you've ever done - or the last minute you spent on any reflective thinking. The reason you don't have structures is that it would be wrong/superineffective to have structures for these types of problems..Ideally, normatively, wrong. All of these problems call for you to create a structure of problemsolving and a structure of final solution ad hoc. There is no right way to start thinking about how to write that computer program - no right place to start, no right set of options, no right length for the program, no right programming language, and ultimately no right, optimal program. And the same is true for every other problem listed. The problems are open - how you define them is open, what constitutes a solution is open, the options are open and often largely unknown, the criteria that should be applied to judging them are open. (And indeed with some of these problems, if you don't produce something new, unpredictable and surprisingly different from any known structure, you've automatically failed, and you're fired). The reason you have this supergeneral, superadaptive intelligence that can certainly begin to cope with all these - open problems that are continually being thrown at you in real life, (and indeed a potentially infinite diversity of them), is precisely that it isn't programmed to deal with them. It can associate freely with these problems and throw ideas together, as you throw clothes together to form an outfit, or foods to make a potpourri. And it only acquires structures and automatic routines for dealing with problems, as for all skills, secondarily, rather than primarily. That's' v. messy and revolts every rationalist, but far from being kluge pace Gary Marcus' latest book, it's beautiful mechanical, computational design, and the secret of AGI. . --- 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=8660244id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: Can We Start P.S.
Mike, WOW, you covered a LOT of territory in this posting. I will attempt to do it justice... On 6/27/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just casually quoted this research, because it reinforced a v. general point of mine.However, it is useful here. I think you're making a classical mistake, which may be v. much linked to the AGI mindset I'm criticising. Putting my conclusion first, I think you missed some key points. That mindset, I think, says: yes, AGI is about solving problems you don't know how to. So I'll just set up an algorithm that instructs my AGI to engage, when stuck, in a process of systematic trial and error... That way, my AGI will be both algorithmic AND exploratory. and generative You seem to be saying something complementary here: you just try various new alternatives, and whichever on average, is better - you go with..It's logical. Not really. I am saying that there are advanced approaches to problems that are apparently unknown to EVERYONE here on this forum, that provide smooth paths to apparently intractable problems. When you are unfamiliar with these methods, then the world appears chaotic as you now see it. Sounds ok in theory. It makes sense to try new options as they may prove advantageous in the long run. For example, a monkey who chooses to deviate from its diet of bananas, even if this involves moving to an unfamiliar part of the forest and eating a new type of food, may find its diet enriched and more nutritious. In practice, it doesn't work. Monkey who do stupid things will loose out to monkeys who are smarter, so Darwin wins. You see, if you're that monkey, when do you go in search of new food? You don't know how long it's going to take, you don't know what dangers lie there, or what the weather will be like. Today? Now? In a hour? Tomorrow? So you go... and there's nothing there.. do you keep looking? There are TWO issues here: 1. finding something with LONG TERM value, like a place to eat for the indefinite future, and 2. refining your models, e.g. that bananas tend to grow in the lowlands where there is ground water, so you can focus your search there once you realize it. And in the same part of the forest, because maybe you missed something; or in another part? And how long do you spend? And which parts of trees and undergrowth etc do you search? And how can you be sure that you've searched thoroughly? And which senses do you use? And what do you do if there's a strange plant you've never seen, and you're not even sure if it is a plant, etc. etc. (I just watched a movie, Finding Amanda, in which a guy can't remember where in his *room*, let alone a forest, he hid his casino winnings, can't find them even after taking the room apart - though the maid does afterwards). Trying something new is vastly more complicated than it sounds - there are in fact virtually infinite possibilities, most of which you won't have thought of, at all. How do you even know you've made a mistake in the first place, that warrants trying something new? How do you know you just didn't persist long enough? All good points, but all with relatively computable answers, albeit with LOTS of computational noise. We're continually dealing with problematic problems, and the thing about them - is - LOGIC DOESN'T APPLY. I STILL haven't yet seen a situation where logic truly doesn't apply. There is no such thing as a systematic trial and error approach to them - not one that can work. That's why creativity is so *demonstrably* hard and such a eureka business when you get an idea. How do I invest in the stockmarket now? Buy up shares at their v. low current prices, and wait a few years? That HAS to work, right - it's logical? If you'd tried it with Japan in 1989, you'd still be in the red. There are no satisfactory algorithms for dealing with the stockmarket. Random investment beats nearly all other methods. There are some that may work at the moment - but only for a while, until the market changes radically.. And all problematic problems can be treated as stockmarket problems - in which you have to decide how to invest limited amounts of time and effort and resources, with highly limited, imperfect knowledge of the options, and sources of information, and un-precisely-quantifiable risks and deadlines. Problematic problems have infinite possibilities - and that's why humans are designed the way they are - not to be sure of anything. You're all dealing with the problematic problem of AGI - is there literally a single thing that anyone of you is sure of in relation to AGI? You ought to be, if you were algorithmically designed.. But nature is still a lot smarter than AGI. You haven't been given an instinctive trial-and-error system. Any approach to trial and error, has itself to be a matter of trial and error. You personally, Steve, seem to be making a further, related mistake here. And you can
Re: [agi] Re: Can We Start P.S.
Steve, We have a really fundamental disagreement. You think cultural conflicts can be resolved by logical analysis - I'm pretty damn sure they can't. My off-the-cuff law - the greater the conflict more dogmatic the conflicting positions on an issue, the greater the ignorance about that issue. Evolution. Massive scientific conflicts. Why? We don't have a single evolutionary scenario, (or v.v. few) to go on. I.Q. Massive conflict. We have almost zero analysis of humans' conscious thinking in solving the relevant problems, and v little longitudinal study of their relevant skill acquisition. For your sake, I suggest, give me any example of a major cultural conflict that has been *resolved* by logical analysis. (BTW I'm using logical in the strict sense, not that of reasonable- but in this case, you can have the second sense, too). Mike, WOW, you covered a LOT of territory in this posting. I will attempt to do it justice... On 6/27/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just casually quoted this research, because it reinforced a v. general point of mine.However, it is useful here. I think you're making a classical mistake, which may be v. much linked to the AGI mindset I'm criticising. Putting my conclusion first, I think you missed some key points. That mindset, I think, says: yes, AGI is about solving problems you don't know how to. So I'll just set up an algorithm that instructs my AGI to engage, when stuck, in a process of systematic trial and error... That way, my AGI will be both algorithmic AND exploratory. and generative You seem to be saying something complementary here: you just try various new alternatives, and whichever on average, is better - you go with..It's logical. Not really. I am saying that there are advanced approaches to problems that are apparently unknown to EVERYONE here on this forum, that provide smooth paths to apparently intractable problems. When you are unfamiliar with these methods, then the world appears chaotic as you now see it. Sounds ok in theory. It makes sense to try new options as they may prove advantageous in the long run. For example, a monkey who chooses to deviate from its diet of bananas, even if this involves moving to an unfamiliar part of the forest and eating a new type of food, may find its diet enriched and more nutritious. In practice, it doesn't work. Monkey who do stupid things will loose out to monkeys who are smarter, so Darwin wins. You see, if you're that monkey, when do you go in search of new food? You don't know how long it's going to take, you don't know what dangers lie there, or what the weather will be like. Today? Now? In a hour? Tomorrow? So you go... and there's nothing there.. do you keep looking? There are TWO issues here: 1. finding something with LONG TERM value, like a place to eat for the indefinite future, and 2. refining your models, e.g. that bananas tend to grow in the lowlands where there is ground water, so you can focus your search there once you realize it. And in the same part of the forest, because maybe you missed something; or in another part? And how long do you spend? And which parts of trees and undergrowth etc do you search? And how can you be sure that you've searched thoroughly? And which senses do you use? And what do you do if there's a strange plant you've never seen, and you're not even sure if it is a plant, etc. etc. (I just watched a movie, Finding Amanda, in which a guy can't remember where in his *room*, let alone a forest, he hid his casino winnings, can't find them even after taking the room apart - though the maid does afterwards). Trying something new is vastly more complicated than it sounds - there are in fact virtually infinite possibilities, most of which you won't have thought of, at all. How do you even know you've made a mistake in the first place, that warrants trying something new? How do you know you just didn't persist long enough? All good points, but all with relatively computable answers, albeit with LOTS of computational noise. We're continually dealing with problematic problems, and the thing about them - is - LOGIC DOESN'T APPLY. I STILL haven't yet seen a situation where logic truly doesn't apply. There is no such thing as a systematic trial and error approach to them - not one that can work. That's why creativity is so *demonstrably* hard and such a eureka business when you get an idea. How do I invest in the stockmarket now? Buy up shares at their v. low current prices, and wait a few years? That HAS to work, right - it's logical? If you'd tried it with Japan in 1989, you'd still be in the red. There are no satisfactory algorithms for dealing with the stockmarket. Random investment beats nearly all other methods. There are some that may work at the moment - but only for a while, until the market changes radically..
Re: [agi] Re: Can We Start P.S.
Mike, On 6/28/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a really fundamental disagreement. You think cultural conflicts can be resolved by logical analysis Your statement centers around the word can above. My point is that if you can successfully educate all sides as to how things like Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum work, then yes, it is possible. If the adversaries stick to their everything I need to know is in my religious book so just shut up about your so-called advanced methods, then things are more difficult. Note that in 1995 I was literally sold into indentured servitude in Saudi Arabia. I escaped that situation WITHOUT educating the Metawa (their religious police force) with a straw man approach, where I engaged them regarding an unrelated issue (their practice of grabbing nurses off the street and taking them to the hospital for forced sperm checks). A literal reading of the Koran said that everyone involved in this should receive 80 lashes (for an accusation of fornication without the requisite 4 witnesses), so they became ever so cooperative with me to avoid this fate. Remember, these are the SAME Sunni Muslims who now populate the Taliban. Yes, I HAVE utilized some advanced approaches, with no power of my own, and with initially non-cooperative parties. I'm pretty damn sure they can't. My off-the-cuff law - the greater the conflict more dogmatic the conflicting positions on an issue, the greater the ignorance about that issue. Ain't THAT the truth?! Evolution. Evolution is curious, because it is ~100% paradigm translatable between the two positions, e.g., can't God refine his own work?! That the two sides are too damn stupid to make this leap is REALLY sad. Massive scientific conflicts. There is always a story behind these, e.g. Big Oil, the global COOLING issue (that temporarily masks global warming), solution bringing economic destruction, etc. Why? We don't have a single evolutionary scenario, (or v.v. few) to go on. I.Q. Massive conflict. We have almost zero analysis of humans' conscious thinking in solving the relevant problems, We sure know that it fails in many instances, and that sometimes solutions ARE possible, e.g. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). and v little longitudinal study of their relevant skill acquisition. My position is that the human approach is deeply flawed, so we should step aside and let the machines do their work. For your sake, I suggest, give me any example of a major cultural conflict that has been *resolved* by logical analysis. (BTW I'm using logical in the strict sense, not that of reasonable- but in this case, you can have the second sense, too). Certainly MAD is a good example, where a nearly certain nuclear exchange was averted at nearly the last minute with a Presidential announcement, just words, crafted by Rand Corp employee Herman Khan. Note the apparent (real?) parallel between MAD and illogical vengence (as Herman Khan later discussed). However, the advanced methods that I advocate have only been in existence for a few years, and apparently no State Department employees understand them yet. Hence, Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum has yet to be tested. Steve Richfield Mike, WOW, you covered a LOT of territory in this posting. I will attempt to do it justice... On 6/27/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just casually quoted this research, because it reinforced a v. general point of mine.However, it is useful here. I think you're making a classical mistake, which may be v. much linked to the AGI mindset I'm criticising. Putting my conclusion first, I think you missed some key points. That mindset, I think, says: yes, AGI is about solving problems you don't know how to. So I'll just set up an algorithm that instructs my AGI to engage, when stuck, in a process of systematic trial and error... That way, my AGI will be both algorithmic AND exploratory. and generative You seem to be saying something complementary here: you just try various new alternatives, and whichever on average, is better - you go with..It's logical. Not really. I am saying that there are advanced approaches to problems that are apparently unknown to EVERYONE here on this forum, that provide smooth paths to apparently intractable problems. When you are unfamiliar with these methods, then the world appears chaotic as you now see it. Sounds ok in theory. It makes sense to try new options as they may prove advantageous in the long run. For example, a monkey who chooses to deviate from its diet of bananas, even if this involves moving to an unfamiliar part of the forest and eating a new type of food, may find its diet enriched and more nutritious. In practice, it doesn't work. Monkey who do stupid things will loose out to monkeys who are smarter, so Darwin wins. You see, if you're that monkey, when do you go in search of new food? You don't know how long it's going
Re: [agi] Re: Can We Start P.S.
Mike, Isn't this sort of behavior completely logical? If you try something new and it is bad, then you have had one bad experience. However, if it is good, then you have many good experiences. Hence. the *average* value of trying something new is many times the value of the best thing that you now have access to, because of this multiplicative effect. IMHO, illogical researchers were looking for an illogical (to them) phenomenon that was in fact completely logical. Jim's God Steve Richfield === On 6/27/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim's God was obviously listening to my last post, because I immediately came across this. I wouldn't make too much of it directly, but let me redefine its significance - there are parts of the brain and body that LIKE not knowing what to do, that LIKE creative, non-algorithmic problems. All you've got to do now is work out how to design a computer like that: Neuroscientists discover a sense of adventure Wellcome Trust scientists have identified a key region of the brain which encourages us to be adventurous. The region, located in a primitive area of the brain, is activated when we choose unfamiliar options, suggesting an evolutionary advantage for sampling the unknown. It may also explain why re-branding of familiar products encourages to pick them off the supermarket shelves. In an experiment carried out at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at UCL (University College London), volunteers were shown a selection of images, which they had already been familiarised with. Each card had a unique probability of reward attached to it and over the course of the experiment, the volunteers would be able to work out which selection would provide the highest rewards. However, when unfamiliar images were introduced, the researchers found that volunteers were more likely to take a chance and select one of these options than continue with their familiar - and arguably safer - option. Using fMRI scanners, which measure blood flow in the brain to highlight which areas are most active, Dr Bianca Wittmann and colleagues showed that when the subjects selected an unfamiliar option, an area of the brain known as the ventral striatum lit up, indicating that it was more active. The ventral striatum is in one of the evolutionarily primitive regions of the brain, suggesting that the process can be advantageous and will be shared by many animals. Seeking new and unfamiliar experiences is a fundamental behavioural tendency in humans and animals, says Dr Wittmann. It makes sense to try new options as they may prove advantageous in the long run. For example, a monkey who chooses to deviate from its diet of bananas, even if this involves moving to an unfamiliar part of the forest and eating a new type of food, may find its diet enriched and more nutritious. When we make a particular choice or carry out a particular action which turns out to be beneficial, it is rewarded by a release of neurotransmitters such as dopamine. These rewards help us learn which behaviours are preferable and advantageous and worth repeating. The ventral striatum is one of the key areas involved in processing rewards in the brain. Although the researchers cannot say definitively from the fMRI scans how novelty seeking is being rewarded, Dr Wittmann believes it is likely to be through dopamine release. However, whilst rewarding the brain for making novel choices may prove advantageous in encouraging us to make potentially beneficial choices, it may also make us more susceptible to exploitation. I might have my own favourite choice of chocolate bar, but if I see a different bar repackaged, advertising its 'new, improved flavour', my search for novel experiences may encourage me to move away from my usual choice, says Dr Wittmann. This introduces the danger of being sold 'old wine in a new skin' and is something that marketing departments take advantage of. Rewarding the brain for novel choices could have a more serious side effect, argues Professor Nathaniel Daw, now at New York University, who also worked on the study. The novelty bonus may be useful in helping us make complex, uncertain decisions, but it clearly has a downside, says Professor Daw. In humans, increased novelty-seeking may play a role in gambling and drug addiction, both of which are mediated by malfunctions in dopamine release. Source: Wellcome Trust http://www.physorg.com/news133617811.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/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription:
Re: [agi] Re: Can We Start P.S.
Steve, I just casually quoted this research, because it reinforced a v. general point of mine.However, it is useful here. I think you're making a classical mistake, which may be v. much linked to the AGI mindset I'm criticising. That mindset, I think, says: yes, AGI is about solving problems you don't know how to. So I'll just set up an algorithm that instructs my AGI to engage, when stuck, in a process of systematic trial and error... That way, my AGI will be both algorithmic AND exploratory. and generative You seem to be saying something complementary here: you just try various new alternatives, and whichever on average, is better - you go with..It's logical. Sounds ok in theory. It makes sense to try new options as they may prove advantageous in the long run. For example, a monkey who chooses to deviate from its diet of bananas, even if this involves moving to an unfamiliar part of the forest and eating a new type of food, may find its diet enriched and more nutritious. In practice, it doesn't work. You see, if you're that monkey, when do you go in search of new food? You don't know how long it's going to take, you don't know what dangers lie there, or what the weather will be like. Today? Now? In a hour? Tomorrow? So you go... and there's nothing there.. do you keep looking? And in the same part of the forest, because maybe you missed something; or in another part? And how long do you spend? And which parts of trees and undergrowth etc do you search? And how can you be sure that you've searched thoroughly? And which senses do you use? And what do you do if there's a strange plant you've never seen, and you're not even sure if it is a plant, etc. etc. (I just watched a movie, Finding Amanda, in which a guy can't remember where in his *room*, let alone a forest, he hid his casino winnings, can't find them even after taking the room apart - though the maid does afterwards). Trying something new is vastly more complicated than it sounds - there are in fact virtually infinite possibilities, most of which you won't have thought of, at all. How do you even know you've made a mistake in the first place, that warrants trying something new? How do you know you just didn't persist long enough? We're continually dealing with problematic problems, and the thing about them - is - LOGIC DOESN'T APPLY. There is no such thing as a systematic trial and error approach to them - not one that can work. That's why creativity is so *demonstrably* hard and such a eureka business when you get an idea. How do I invest in the stockmarket now? Buy up shares at their v. low current prices, and wait a few years? That HAS to work, right - it's logical? If you'd tried it with Japan in 1989, you'd still be in the red. There are no satisfactory algorithms for dealing with the stockmarket. There are some that may work at the moment - but only for a while, until the market changes radically.. And all problematic problems can be treated as stockmarket problems - in which you have to decide how to invest limited amounts of time and effort and resources, with highly limited, imperfect knowledge of the options, and sources of information, and un-precisely-quantifiable risks and deadlines. Problematic problems have infinite possibilities - and that's why humans are designed the way they are - not to be sure of anything. You're all dealing with the problematic problem of AGI - is there literally a single thing that anyone of you is sure of in relation to AGI? You ought to be, if you were algorithmically designed.. But nature is still a lot smarter than AGI. You haven't been given an instinctive trial-and-error system. Any approach to trial and error, has itself to be a matter of trial and error. You personally, Steve, seem to be making a further, related mistake here. And you can correct me. As I understand, you want to construct a general problem-solver, adapted from Eliza that can solve problems in many fields not just health. Sounds in principle good. Something more limited than a true AGI, but still v. useful. You're aware, though, as no one else in AGI seems to be, that in every field of culture, you face major conflicts. There isn't a single field where experts aren't deeply split and don't divide into conflicting schools. That obviously poses major difficulties for any general problem-solver, let alone a superAGI. Your mistake - as I understand it - is that you think you can *logically* resolve these conflicts. The reason everyone is so divided everywhere is that they're dealing with problematic problems to which there is no logical or right answer. What's the best treatment for cancer? What's the best way to do AGI now? What's the best way to deal with the economy, the petrol problem, Iraq etc etc? No matter how you - or even a superAGI - drills down into these problems, people will still be fighting tooth and nail about their solutions. Understandably.
