You say.... > Likewise, an artificial general > intelligence is not "a set of environment states S, a set of actions A, > and a set of scalar "rewards" in the Reals".)
What are the basic system modules to seed AI? Dan Goe ---------------------------------------------------- >From : Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To : [email protected] Subject : Re: [agi] AGI bottlenecks Date : Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:25:18 -0400 > > James, > > It is a little hard to know where to start, to be honest. Do you have a > background in any particular area already, or are you pre-college? If > the latter, and if you are interested in the field in a serious way, I > would recommend that you hunt down a good programme in cognitive science > (and if possible do software engineering as a minor). After about three > or four years of that, you'll have a better idea of where the below > argument was coming from. Even then, expect to have to argue the heck > out of your professors, only believe one tenth of everything they say, > and discover your own science as you go along, rather than be told what > the answers are. A lot of the questions do not have answers yet. > > All thinking systems do have a motivation system of some sort (what you > were talking about below as "rewards"), but people's ideas about the > design of that motivational system vary widely from the implicit and > confused to the detailed and convoluted (but not necessarily less > confused). The existence of a motivational system was not the issue in > my post: the issue was exactly *how* you design that motivation system. > > Behaviorism (and reinforcement learning) was a suggestion that took a > diabolically simplistic view of how that motivation system is supposed > to work .... so simplistic that, in fact, it swept under the carpet all > the real issues. What I was complaining of was a recent revival in > interest in the idea of reinforcement learning, in which people were > beginning to make the same stupid mistakes that were made 80 years ago, > without apparently being aware of what those stupid mistakes were. > > (To give you an analogy that illustrates the problem: imagine someone > waltzes into Detroit and says "It ain't so hard to beat these Japanese > car makers: I mean, a car is just four wheels and a thing that pushes > them around. I could build one of those in my garage and beat the pants > off Toyota in a couple of weeks!" A car is not "four wheels and a > thing that pushes them around". Likewise, an artificial general > intelligence is not "a set of environment states S, a set of actions A, > and a set of scalar "rewards" in the Reals".) > > Watching history repeat itself is pretty damned annoying. > > Richard Loosemore > > > > > James Ratcliff wrote: > > Richard, > > Can you explain differently, in other words the second part of this > > post. I am very interested in this as a large part of an AI system. > > I believe in some fashion there needs to be a controlling algorithm > > that tells the AI that it is doing "Right" be it either an internal or > > external human reward. We receive these rewards in our daily life, in > > our jobs relationships and such, wether we actually learn from these is > > to be debated though. > > > > James Ratcliff > > > > */Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: > > > > > > Will, > > > > Comments taken, but the direction of my critique may have gotten > > lost in > > the details: > > > > Suppose I proposed a solution to the problem of unifying quantum > > mechanics and gravity, and suppose I came out with a solution that said > > that the unified theory involved (a) a specific interface to quantum > > theory, which I spell out in great detail, and (b) ditto for an > > interface with geometrodynamics, and (c) a linkage component, to be > > specified. > > > > Physicists would laugh at this. What linkage component?! they would > > say. And what makes you *believe* that once you sorted out the linkage > > component, the two interfaces you just specified would play any role > > whatsoever in that linkage component? They would point out that my > > "linkage component" was the meat of the theory, and yet I had referred > > to in such a way that it seemed as though it was just an extra, to be > > sorted out later. > > > > This is exactly what happened to Behaviorism, and the idea of > > Reinforcement Learning. The one difference was that they did not > > explicitly specify an equivalent of my (c) item above: it was for the > > cognitive psychologists to come along later and point out that > > Reinforcement Learning implicitly assumed that something in the brain > > would do the job of deciding when to give rewards, and the job of > > deciding what the patterns actually were .... and that that something > > was the part doing all the real work. In the case of all the > > experiments in the behaviorist literature, the experimenter substituted > > for those components, making them less than obvious. > > > > Exactly the same critique bears on anyone who suggests that > > Reinforcement Learning could be the basis for an AGI. I do not believe > > there is still any reply to that critique. > > > > Richard Loosemore > > > > > > > > > > > > William Pearson wrote: > > > On 01/06/06, Richard Loosemore wrote: > > > > > >> I had similar feelings about William Pearson's recent message about > > >> systems that use reinforcement learning: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > A reinforcement scenario, from wikipedia is defined as > > >> > > > >> > "Formally, the basic reinforcement learning model consists of: > > >> > > > >> > 1. a set of environment states S; > > >> > 2. a set of actions A; and > > >> > 3. a set of scalar "rewards" in the Reals. > > >> > " > > >> > > >> Here is my standard response to Behaviorism (which is what the above > > >> reinforcement learning model actually is): Who decides when the > > rewards > > >> should come, and who chooses what are the relevant "states" and > > >> "actions"? > > > > > > The rewards I don't deal with, I am interested in external brain > > > add-ons rather than autonomous systems, so the reward system will be > > > closely coupled to a human in some fashion. > > > > > > The rest of post I was trying to outline a system that could alter > > > what it considered actions and states (and bias, learning algorithms > > > etc). The RL definition was just there as an example to work against. > > > > > >> If you find out what is doing *that* work, you have found your > > >> intelligent system. And it will probably turn out to be so > > enormously > > >> complex, relative to the reinforcement learning part shown > > above, that > > >> the above formalism (assuming it has not been discarded by then) > > will be > > >> almost irrelevant. > > > > > > The internals of the system will be enormously more complex compared > > > to the reinforcement part I described. But it won't make that > > > irrelevent. What goes on inside a PC is vastly more complex than the > > > system that governs the permissions of what each *nix program can do. > > > This doesn't mean the permission governing system is irrelevent. > > > > > > Like the permissions system in *nix the reinforcement system it is > > > only supposed to govern who is allowed to do what, not what actually > > > happens. Unlike the permission system it is supposed to get that from > > > the affect of the programs on the environment. Without it both sorts > > > of systems would be highly unstable. > > > > > > I see it as a necessity for complete modular flexibility. If you get > > > one of the bits that does the work wrong, or wrong for the current > > > environment, how do you allow it to change? > > > > > >> Just my deux centimes' worth. > > >> > > > > > > Appreciated. > > > > > >> > > >> On a more positive note, I do think it is possible for AGI > > researchers > > >> to work together within a common formalism. My presentation at the > > >> AGIRI workshop was about that, and when I get the paper version > > of the > > >> talk finalized I will post it somewhere. > > >> > > > > > > I'll be interested, but sceptical. > > > > > > Will > > > > > > ------- > > > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your > > > subscription, please go to > > > http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > ------- > > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your > > subscription, > > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > Thank You > > James Ratcliff > > http://FallsTown.com - Local Wichita Falls Community Website > > http://Falazar.com - Personal Website > > Hosting Starting at $9.95 > > Dialups Accounts - $8.95 > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your > > subscription, please go to > > http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ------- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
