>I'm not clear on why he thinks human level intelligence is >"understandable", or even what he means by this.
As Ben stated there are really two different issues of "understanding" 1. Understanding the code and process. 2. Understanding the intelligence (and actions taken by it) 1. Your right and it is known for most complex systems, Jets, computers, the internet, that no one person "knows" or understands everything about how they work.. but they do work and can be created by groups, and parts can be understood if studied. A general understanding of what a jet is and does is understood. 2. However understanding the intelligence would seem on one level to be a Requirement for having a human level AGI. IE if you have the AGI there and it is acting in a bizare and strange manner, and cant explain why, then we cannot really say it is a human level AGI.. we can only see that it is a machine that acts randomly... (we have enough of those already) But to understand the intelligence, and for the AGI to be useful in the world, it really does have the need to be able to explain itself. It shoudl list and give reasons of why it wants to put a fin underneath the jet at a 45' angle, that it will increase stability, and show a graph or the math behind his justification. Then this smaller subset problem can more easily be understood by a person or group of experts. At some time an AGI may become so advanced that the reasons behind any one action are so complex that we cannot understand or follow it. But at that point I believe it will have surpassed the label of "human level" and be something more. Then we would have to trust the machines, based on past performance, or other procedures would be used. Or the machine may have to proove in test that its suggestions are good and work. James Ratcliff Eric Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Pei> According to my belief, the way to create AGI is to have a Pei> general theory of intelligence, which should cover the common Pei> principle under all kinds of intelligent systems, including human Pei> intelligence, computer intelligence, etc., even alien Pei> intelligence and superhuman AGI. Therefore, this theory should Pei> also cover your AGI0 to AGIn. According to my belief, that I also claim to have published a strong case for, we have such a theory, in which the common principle underlying intelligence is that of Occam programs, that are computationally hard to extract. (I don't mean a program in the Occam language, a program constructed according to an extrapolated Occam's razor.) Also according to this belief, "understanding" is comprised of having such an Occam program that exploits underlying structure in order to generalize. According to this belief, unfortunately, the Occam program underlying our intelligence is itself unlikely to admit any more compact Occam program understanding it, and thus may be inherently not understandable. According to this picture, if we can succeed in creating a Human Level Intelligence (according to this picture, there roughly speaking doesn't exist any truly "general" intelligence) the way we will do that will be by building some structures/code that then computes and builds other structures/code that comprises the code of the Human Level Intelligence. The actual Human Level Intelligence will likely not be understandable in any meaningful sense. Ben's comments, and to some extent his approach to AGI of building code and then hoping when run it will produce a complex set of patterns that do stuff seems somewhat related to this, except for some reason he stipulates that human intelligence is understandable. I'm not clear on why he thinks human level intelligence is "understandable", or even what he means by this. Richard> efforts (some people seem to think that there is something Richard> inherently impossible about a human being able to design Richard> something smarter than itself, but that idea is really just Richard> science-fiction hearsay, not grounded in any real Richard> limitations). Well, no it is grounded in real limitations. I doubt, Richard, that even you think you could "design" a human level intelligence by hand, any more than you could personally design a mirage jet, the blueprints for which filled a warehouse. At the very least you would want to use a computer, and write code for the computer, and have the computer do a lot of the design for you by running the code. At the end of that process, you wouldn't necessarily "understand" much about how that design worked. And if the very guts of the reason that design worked are because it contains programs that were output by finding approximate solutions to computationally intractable problems, you'd be in real trouble. ----- 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/?&; _______________________________________ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. ----- 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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
