YKY wrote:
> In a bottom-up hierarchy of concepts (built up from micro-features) > I'm afraid it is impossible to change to an entirely new bottom > without having to rebuild the whole structure. Well, I disagree. I can prove you're wrong about "impossible", but the interesting question is "how difficult in practical circumstances" and for that I don't have a mathematical answer ... so we'll need to wait and see... > 1. Self-Modifying Programs: I assume your idea is to use self- > -modification as a form of learning. The search space is thus the > algorithmic space. I have explained briefly in my web page that > algorithmic search is highly intractable, which we seemed to have > consensus already. If you think about it, program self-modification > is a form of evolutionary programming, and EP is not very efficient > even when people are doing it consciously. Do you have particular > reasons to believe you have found an efficient algorithmic search > algorithm? If not, maybe the idea of self-modifying programs is > a dead end. Yes, I believe we have found * a relatively small subspace of the space of all "algorithms", which displays a very wide variety of useful behaviors (we call this subspace "zig-zag trees", they're a special kind of "combinator tree") * an efficient algorithm for searching this subspace (an improvement of Pelikan and Goldberg's Bayesian Optimization Algorithm, enhanced to make use of long-term memory via invocation of probabilistic term logic) > 2. I discovered some new problems in my AGI "blueprint", so I'm > not promoting it at the moment. One issue that you may want to > consider is that of *redundancy*. I suspect that in our brain > we're simulataneously keeping a lot of alternative > interpretations to sensory events. We act coherently because > at any time only one interpretation is active, but other > interpretations are latent in the neural network. The "Necker > cube" may somewhat illustrate this point. Another example is > sometimes you listen to what people say to you and only > understand their deeper meanings much later. If you want to > design a memory module, redundancy is probably necessary. That > means you should be keeping multiple interpretations of events > and let them compete with each other, and don't delete those > that are out-competed unless they've been inactive for a long > time. Basically very "Hebbian". Could there be any alternatives > to it? Indeed, Novamente keeps multiple possible interpretations of events, sentences, etc. in memory, and forgets them only as needed to free up RAM for new and more important stuff... -- Ben G --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.733 / Virus Database: 487 - Release Date: 8/2/2004 ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
