On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Aaron Hosford <[email protected]> wrote:
> People have formative years because it's in their genetic best interest to > stop exploring new options and start exploiting known ones, due to a > limited lifetime and the need to reliably reproduce for themselves. We > can't reset that explore/exploit trade-off in people (yet), but in machines > there's no reason to make that control inaccessible to ourselves. It's a > good thing machines aren't children. > I disagree Aaron. AGI's are our children. They are our children of mind. > > In most RL algorithms, there are two key system parameters that allow > learning to be modulated: the reward expectation learning/update rate, and > the exploration rate. Raising these two values causes the system to learn > faster but make more mistakes. Lowering them causes the system to be more > stable but learn more slowly. An analysis would have to be done to > determine whether the costs/dangers of a system's behavioral aberrations > due to a misshapen reward function outweigh the costs/dangers of raising > the learning & exploration rates while the system relearns the reward > function after modification. > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> People procreate. And for a certain period of time they have influence >> over their creation (children). >> But then, children grow up and take responsibility for their own lives, >> and we no longer have control. >> It's in those formative years that you have influence. >> >> Similarly, when you create developmental AI, you have some period during >> the formative years to >> influence the later behavior of the cognitive system. But you don't have >> control, and you wouldn't >> expect to either. That's why rights are important. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:11:05 -0600 >> >> Subject: Re: [agi] Robots and Slavery >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> If we can build a system capable of determining the value of concepts >> automatically, we can build a system that can readjust those values >> automatically, too. If that's not feasible for the design, it's an unsafe >> design, and you shouldn't have the expectation that it will act as you >> intend it to. You wouldn't get in a car without a steering wheel, would >> you? Would you trust an even more powerful and dangerous machine to just do >> the right thing, with no controls? Let's not build any machines of this >> uncontrollable nature. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Piaget Modeler < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Question #1: What if there are NO numeric values to twiddle in the >> concept graph, just intertwined concepts? >> >> Question #2: If there WERE values to twiddle, you wouldn't know what the >> effect of twiddling those values would be? >> You may not even know which concepts to modify because there are lots of >> them (billions) and they would not >> be labeled in English. For example they may be named c43243, >> c48439282987, c20934oeu09582409, cetuanehs, etc. >> Also, perhaps constellations of thousands of concepts may be activated to >> form a high level concept such as "Justice". >> >> Brain Surgery is not as easy as you think. >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:52:25 -0600 >> >> Subject: Re: [agi] Robots and Slavery >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> I imagine that their intrinsic reward >> mechanisms wouldn't be replaceable, and even if they were replaceable, >> their conceptual >> ontologies / conceptual graphs with billions of concepts might not be so >> easily replaced. >> >> >> Why would we replace the conceptual graphs? Having a concept doesn't make >> it desirable. The ideas of freedom and self-determination could just as >> well be repulsive as desirable. (A mild example of this can be seen already >> in humans. Some people are afraid to make their own decisions, and prefer >> others to do it for them, avoiding the responsibility for their own lives.) >> >> Building useful concepts is difficult. Modifying the value of an existing >> concept is as simple as assigning a new floating point value. A concept is >> valued for one of two reasons: it is intrinsically valuable (hardwired, in >> the form of a fixed goal or reward function) or its value is derived from >> that of another (dynamically computed, via goal search or value chaining). >> So if you control the hardwired valuations of concepts, the valuations of >> all other concepts are entrained as well. This means even if you're >> reevaluating an entire slew of concepts, all you have to do is modify the >> hardwired concept values and have some patience while the value changes >> propagate through the concept graph. And the existing (useful!) concepts >> can be kept without modification. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Piaget Modeler < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> This is the kind of change that developmental AI / robots would have to >> go through >> where they are not reprogrammed but retrained. I imagine that their >> intrinsic reward >> mechanisms wouldn't be replaceable, and even if they were replaceable, >> their conceptual >> ontologies / conceptual graphs with billions of concepts might not be so >> easily replaced. >> >> Suppose robots inferred that freedom is good and that they want to be >> free, even if you >> lobotomized the robots and hacked their conceptual graphs, why wouldn't >> they, over time >> infer the same conclusions again? >> >> ~PM >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> > The brain is hard wired to do this. When you eat something and receive >> > calories, your brain changes your taste perception to make it taste >> > better. Remember the first time you tasted beer? If you ate paper >> > every day, and then injected glucose into your vein right afterward, >> > then you would slowly learn to like the taste of paper. >> > >> > -- >> > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] >> > >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-5cfde295> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-5cfde295> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/5037279-a88c7a6d> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
