It 's simply a matter of nomenclature you use the former, I use the latter. Recipe = SolutionOpportunity = Intention Here are the definitions in my language: (prototype Solution :Before :Steps :After) (prototype Intention :Goal :Status :Depth :Urgency :Priority)
What are the attributes of an "Opportunity"? (prototype Recipie :Preconditions :Steps :Effects) (prototype Opportunity :Priority :Risk :Cost :Skills :Viability :Elements) (prototype StansSystem :CurrentRecipe :CurrentStep) How does the Opportunity's :Priority get assigned? Is there a current recipe somewhere where we need to maintain a pointer to the current step? Kindly advise. ~PM Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 22:38:38 -0600 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [agi] Are all goals created equal? On 09/27/2014 10:17 PM, Piaget Modeler via AGI wrote: ... But why would one goal get a higher priority than another, aside from inheriting its priority from a basic need? Perhaps I lack imagination. Your thoughts? ~PM Priority is part of a bigger picture. Priority can be “gen'd” from many sources. Is there a way to manage the barrage of priority claims? What priority will rise to the top and become the one we react to in the next moment? We want to discern between priorities because it is likely that a few will indeed be “better,” that is, produce better outcomes in the future. Indeed, this is a hard problem, and possibly resource intensive. For us who ponder "how intelligent" a machine can be, it's part of the challenge. The original question relates to how goals get priority levels. My description of how I think this can work follows: In my “master plan” for an intelligent unit, priority is based on the “recipe” that is currently being cooked. Recipes have steps, and the “next step” is determined by what the recipe prescribes. This sounds too simple to be useful, but there is a bigger picture that I hope will explain why this “source” of priority can be effective. As programmers, we know that things are accomplished by a sequence of steps. Even in object programming, the methods are steps, that is, sequential programming. If I start down a sequence of steps, then it only makes sense that I follow through the routine. I started the sequence because I want the affect that those steps will generate. Can we agree at this point that if we are in a sequence, then the next step is the priority? Then, our “intelligence task” is to determine the sequence that we should be executing at the moment. As hinted above, we have reasons for starting a sequence and it is that set of reasons that form a selection criteria. “Reasons” are built up in layers – things build upon related concepts. As Jim Bromer has suggested, concepts can quickly become complex and confusing. My plan attempts to control this complexity by not attempting “logical gymnastics” with all these concepts. Instead of attempting to be a black belt in logic, I want to find other ways to select. Not so far fetched given that children acquire methods before they have well developed logical grasp on the concepts of life. My approach is to look at recipes as being a component of a more encompassing object, the opportunity. Opportunity is much more that just a recipe, it also factors in risk, cost, skills, viability and elements of the surroundings. To simplify where I'm going with this, our intelligence task is one of acquiring and comparing opportunity. Comparing is where we build the basis for selecting the better opportunity for the moment. Based on this strategy, I see “priority” as determined by the working set of opportunity that the unit has adopted, or been given, or otherwise acquired. Select the opportunity that fits the moment, work the recipe of that opportunity and you are doing “high priority,” as far as your unit is concerned. It may seem that I've only shifted the task of selection of priority from “the goal” to “the opportunity,” but as one attempts to determine why his goal is a goal, and what value it has, he or she will soon be faced with an “opportunity” like scenario. Just skip the goal thing and go directly to opportunity, and allow that to be your basic currency. Lots of details left out (long enough post.) I believe there is an architecture here. Nearly all aspects of the system can be implemented as “opportunity.” Building everything out of opportunity is an interesting “bootstrapping” exercise. Result is a simple “machine.” Stan AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
