To resolve this conflict requires us to have some form of knowledge of
how well the processes have been performing. If X has been performing
better than Y we can hope that X is functioning correctly and allow X
to correct Y. How can we know whether a process is performing well?
Well it has to be up to each process to monitor the others it
interacts with. As no one process has the knowledge (as one process
interacts with many others) then it has to be scored by many other
processes on how useful it is being. They each give it a quantity
called usefulness, utility, happiness points or fitness (as it sets up
a form of evolution). To minimise errors in this usefulness system,
usefulness has to be conserved, a process can only give out some of
the usefulness it has. Also to correct an error or create an
improvement the usefulness of the process being corrected has to be
paid and used up, to indicate the amount of potential damage the
correction tool has done. So if a process is not being given any
usefulness it will be very easy to get rid of.
*nods* Similar to things like bucket-brigade credit assignment - yes, I think something along those lines is a promising approach; it would help avoid problems like e.g. Eurisko had where an aberrant module would arbitrarily assign itself extremely high credit.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
