Russell> On 3/20/07, Eric Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This is the problem with Wallace's complaints. You actually want >> the "machine [to do] something unpredicted", namely the right thing >> in unpredicted circumstances. Its true that its hard and expensive >> to engineer/find an underlying compact explanation, but it is >> precisely the fact that this very constrained/compact underlying >> program is so improbable that makes it work! The arguments for its >> working in fact *rest exactly* on the fact that it is so >> improbable, it wouldn't exist unless it generalized to new >> experiences. So while its hard to engineer this, which might be >> called emergence, you will IMO be forced to if you want to >> succeed. That is the reason why AGI is hard. >>
Russell> It's one reason why AGI is hard, and there is truth in what Russell> you say. Russell> However, ab initio search for compact explanation is so hard Russell> that we humans mostly don't do it because we can't. When we Russell> do have to bite the bullet and explicitly attempt it, it Russell> often takes entire communities of geniuses working for Russell> decades to produce a result that can be boiled down to a few Russell> lines. Newton, Darwin, Einstein et al were by no means the Russell> only ones working on their various problems. Koza has an Russell> example of the invention of a simple circuit, I think it was Russell> the negative feedback amplifier or somesuch, you could draw Russell> it on the back of a cigarette pack, it took a very bright Russell> engineer months or years of thinking before he cracked it, Russell> and there were lots of others trying at the same time. Russell> What we mostly do is use existing solutions and blends Russell> thereof, that were developed by our predecessors over Russell> millions of lifetimes. Don't forget the investment of effort by evolution, which was even far greater still. Even when I'm programming, apparently Russell> writing new code, I'm really mostly using concepts I learned Russell> from other people, tweaking and blending them to fit the Russell> current context. Russell> And an AGI will have to do the same. Yes, it will have to be Russell> able to bite the bullet and run a full-blown search for a Russell> compact solution when necessary. But that's just plain too Russell> hard to be doing all the time, so an AGI will have to, like Russell> humans, mostly rely on existing concepts developed by other Russell> people. Oh absolutely. What's hard, and has to be faced, is designing the AGI. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
