Uh, a human baby has to do a lot of bumping up against the world, a lot of grasping, trying to move, trying to focus eyes, learning to make sounds intelligible. Then they need endless add-ons to their own knowledge of the world in the form of instillation of thinks learned by others over time and distilled and encapsulated for transmission by the culture. Much of the generality is drawing conclusions using human baby machinery/programming from tons and tons of experience. This machinery itself was not created by some uber-hacker setting down and thinking up what such general machinery might be like. So best of luck with that.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Todor Arnaudov <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for sharing this story, Steve! > > A vote from me for the interpreters (virtual machines) and > (self-)modification/improvement. > Hard-coded compiled software is too limited and fragile. It should always > be a part of a hybrid system, with part of the system compiled (maximally > optimized), and part - flexible and capable to adjust to the needs (such as > your Huffman-coded opcodes or different programing > languages/domain-specific ones), to self-repair and to improve. > > Also congratulations for pushing the limits of the tiny hardware! > > > *Steve* >These were CAREFULLY designed so that NO add-on extensions would > ever be needed > > *Todor: *Indeed! Regarding one of the popular definitions about AGI, that > it should solve problems which the designers "haven't conceived" or for > which the system wasn't "designed". If the sense of "design" is "what the > designer understood, wrote down on paper, specifically marked etc." - OK. > > However, if the system is really and consistently GENERAL - globally or > for its domain, - then all possible problems would be conceived.... :-) > That's the criterion for true generality. > > The specific *INSTANCES* of the problems might not be predefined "on > paper" with full details - but that's one of the purposes of the AGI, the > versatile limitless self-improver - to fill-in and execute all the > instances, combinations, details, versions etc. automatically and much > faster and deeper than a human would do. > > The "problem" are the methods for quick and efficient improvement, > accumulation, generalization and then specialization (application) etc., > and it should be possible to develop the basis that start to develop quick > enough with minimum resources... > > ... > > *Sequences of coordinate adjustments and applications of forces* > > For example a superficial analyst may say that "humans learn ever novel > and novel motions/behaviors of the hands - never ending new gestures, which > weren't performed in the past - grasping an apple, a bolt, a pencil, a > soccer ball, a tennis ball, a tennis racket, a pebble, a knife; headphones; > a car's tire... etc. etc. > > However it's "novel" only to the analyst/evaluator who doesn't realize > that it doesn't matter WHAT is grasped, but HOW it's grasped. When "HOW" is > generalized, it's all the same - just sequences of adjustments of > coordinates' and forces' applied from/by the hand. > > That's all, and it was ALL conceived by the design - hands/body are > universal actuators, because they allow free manipulation and application > of forces in 3D. The possible sequences are many, but it's all > CONFIGURABLE, and each of the vectors/coordinates within the sequence are > simple. There's NOTHING "radically new". > > When one grasps an integrated circuit, it's not true to say that "human > body wasn't conceived to pick integrated circuits - such didn't exist etc., > so it learns new behaviors". > > It's "new" only if you compare WHAT's captured, while the essential about > the behavior/motion is HOW the hand perform it. > > Actually hand WAS designed to pick and operate with anything with so and > so boundary dimensions (calculable by any particular person's hands/body > dimensions and biomechanics - allowing some variations achievable by > practice, or reducible by lack of practice and aging), boundary weight, > sharpness etc. etc. etc. > > There's nothing new for the body. > > Here some would say - well, maybe you're right, but for example the > robotic hand is "radically new". That would be wrong again, because in the > above POV, the essential part is the same - any physical actuator or any > mechanical part or engine or system is about applying given forces at given > coordinates in given sequences in time. Sorry inventors: it's already > invented... > > The "new" is that the analysts don't get the real (essential, generalized) > purpose of the actuators, but pick inessential details which can be vastly > generalized and compressed. > > *Steve>*these were CAREFULLY designed so that NO add-on extensions would > ever be needed, though we did add-in some additional capabilities before we > finished. With each interpreter able to do everything that was needed in > its domain AND NO MORE, there could be NO system-crashing bugs, malware, > etc. > > *Todor: *Another good point, the final one (I'd rather allow extensions, > though, my system does and I think it should). > > However the system should never crash beyond self-repair, it should be > designed to ever "live". It could be allowed to crash non-"fatally" or to > "respawn" - some of its experiments may cause some of its subordinate > systems to stop working, it may even halt, but it should be capable to > switch to alternative subsystem while restarting the malfunction > subsystems, use backup subsystems, watchdogs, backup copies of its mind > etc. > > *Steve>*I suspect that if programmed intelligence is ever developed, it > will start with something REALLY SIMPLE that is then successively modified > and enhanced to be what we call intelligent. With this approach, each step > is tractably doable. With a "design intelligence from scratch" approach, it > appears to be obviously beyond human ability. > > *Todor: *IMO there's a bit of confusion above. The newborn babies *ARE *AGIs. > Designing an AGI's "baby's body" (and its appropriate environment and > teachers), seed-AI, fetus of intelligence, Self-Improving General > Intelligence, Versatile Limitless Self Improver - which is capable to > self-improve step-by-step *IS* design of intelligence "from scratch". > > It's true (but in *different sense*), though, that the typical AI-ers > (old-school) believe that "intelligence" is their own 30-40-50 years-old > developed brain and more precisely, some specific reasoning abilities > (which they can't trace back, they can't trace back even 1 hour of > operation back). > > They try to design a system that behaves like this brain - which in fact > CAN"T learn a lot of elementary things, such as arts - *without *having > (and without understanding) the appropriate developmental history, which > would otherwise explain everything, and is in fact easier to do. > > This AI-ers case may calso be called design "from scratch" in the sense > that it lacks history/background, but it's also not from scratch - it's an > attempt to design fully developed system - one that's having required > subsystems present in "final" stage as early as the beginning. > > > *=== Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov ===* > > .... Twenkid Research: http://research.twenkid.com > > .... Author of the world's first University courses in AGI (2010, 2011): > http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2010/04/universal-artificial-intelligence.html > > .... Todor Arnaudov's Researches Blog: http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/2997756-fc0b9b09> | > 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
