I do not believe that the algorithm must be more complex. The more complex the
algorithm, the more ad hoc it is. Complex algorithms are not able to perform
generalized tasks. I believe the reason that n-digit was a failure was because
there is no vision system, NOT because the algorithm is too simple. Because the
algorithm searches the database recursively, I believe that my simple algorithm
can perform any computation (trained by operant conditioning). The failure for
n-digit addition was because there are no "eyes" that can move to concentrate
on each digit.
The database is remarkably similar to the human brain. It can learn easily by
only remembering the difference between the external stimuli with a similar
stimuli "remembered" in the database. Therefore, the algorithm compress the
learned knowledge efficiently. Pattern recognition and abstract reasoning is
also easy because of the incremental learning.
I am having trouble with the fuzzy "database" representation. So it's best to
test the algorithm in a specific subfield (like n-digit addition) and then
generalize it into real-world tasks.
In general, my algorithm behaves like the brain of an animal. Animals learn by
operant conditioning and are also difficult to teach them multiple digit
addition.
I believe that the environment must be fuzzy in order for the operant
conditioning method to work.
I know that the database has to remember pain and pleasure for stimuli. But I
have difficulty making a "fuzzy" database representation, even for some
subfields.
----- Original Message ----
From: Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 5:06:33 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Trouble implementing my AGI Algorithm
Interesting e-mail. I agree with most of your philosophy but believe that
the algorithm you are requesting is far, far more complex than you realize.
Is there any particular reason why you're remaining anonymous?
----- Original Message -----
From: "a" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:57 PM
Subject: [agi] Trouble implementing my AGI Algorithm
> Hello,
>
> I have trouble implementing my AGI algorithm:
>
> The below paragraphs might sound ridiculous, because they are my original
> ideas.
>
> We are all motivated by selfish thoughts. We help others so others can
> help us back. We help others to cope
> with our pleasurable chemical addiction. We help others because
> helpfulness is encoded in our genetic markup.
>
> We experience pain. Pain is to help us defend damage. When we touch
> something hot we can draw back. But we
> have the free will to not react to it. I believe there is no free will.
>
> I will explain what I means. Assume that pain is a constraint. But this
> constraint is not absolute. Other
> thoughts can override the constraint. For example, when you help some
> animal being eaten from a monster, you
> can fight with the monster to save the
>
> animal's life. But you will experience pain in the fight. Therefore pain
> is not a constraint. Your goal to save the animal's
> life overrides the pain constraint. (your goal to save the
>
> animal's life is also motivated by selfish actions) Therefore, pain is not
> a constraint. But if there is no goal that overrides the pain constraint,
> you will do anything to avoid the pain. We have proven there is no free
> will--we choose to react or not react to pain is dependent on your goal or
> our knowledge. Therefore, implementing pain as a constraint in friendly AI
> will not help many lives. Our brains are doing things to get the highest
> pleasure as possible. We get a chemical addiction to save that animal.
> That pleasure is more pleasant than avoiding the pain by not fighting. We
> trust ourselves. We can gamble pain for future pleasure. Therefore, I
> believe that emotion can be implemented by an ordinary computer. Emotion
> can be implemented by an algorithm that searches for the highest pleasure.
> The algorithm must also has the ability to gamble pain for pleasure (by
> applying "goals" or knowledge). There is no right or wrong. We kill
> insects all the time. But we usually do
> not sympathize with them. This is because that our "religion" says that
> bugs are not as important as other animals. It's
> a byproduct of natural selection. We have to hunt animals to survive.
>
> Without religion, we would brood over this question: Is it better to save
> a human by sacrificing 1000 insects
> or vice versa?
>
> Therefore we assume that religion is natural. Religion helps us survive.
> Some religions help us believe there
> is afterlife and reincarnation. Because we believe these, we do not fear
> death. We are not afraid to
> sacrifice ourselves for others. For example, we will not be afraid to
> participate in wars and spread our
> religion. Religion is a virus. Most of the world is religious because of
> that.
>
> Therefore, some religions are dangerous. But religion is essential for our
> daily survival. Some religious
> thoughts are encoded in our genes.
>
> It's a process of natural selection. Kin selection and group selection are
> examples. Returning to the main question: Is selfishness essential for
> friendly AI? Selfish is related to laziness. Lazy people do not like to
> sacrifice hard work for pleasure (or they do not enjoy pleasure). They do
> not like to sacrifice their energy for pleasure. Contrastingly, AI can use
> as much energy as it wants. They do not get tired. Pain is using "energy".
> But what about these feelings of people? Friendly AI will get pleasure if
> it sees the people happy. For example, many people are afraid of AI, even
> friendly AI. The friendly AI computer will self-destruct so these people
> will not worry about AI. The AI computer has to maintain at least a little
> superiority on oneself to prevent self-destruction. It's
> a natural instinct.
>
> But the last paragraph is contradictory. Will the computer self-destruct
> to get pleasure? We will guess:
> selfish friendly AI might not. Unselfish friendly AI might (depends on
> knowledge and circumstances).
>
> This is where religion takes over. If the selfish friendly AI believes in
> an afterlife, it might self-
> destruct on some circumstances. The selfish friendly AI might experience
> pleasure during self- destruction.
> The selfish friendly AI might otherwise (depending on religion) set a goal
> that it will experience pleasure
> after it is self- destructed.
>
> However, the friendly AI will be smart enough to figure out, for example,
> that there is no such thing as an
> afterlife and religion. What do we do about it? What do we do when it
> figures out that all organisms are
> equally superior?
>
> Therefore, I believe that selfish AI might be less "risky" than unselfish
> AI. Unselfish AI might treat
> everything equally; it might sacrifice humans to save animals.
>
> To choose the "safest" route, we need an AI that behaves like a human. For
> example, if humans are motivated
> by selfish goals, then friendly AI has to be motivated by selfish goals.
> We need an AI to be taught by a top-
> down method rather than a bottom-up approach, like humans.
>
> How do we make the selfish friendly AI algorithm? We have an obvious
> requirement: lots of
>
> heuristics (like pleasure, pain).
>
> It's the same for humans. The heuristics for humans are encoded in our
> genetic code. Because the human brain computes concurrently, the algorithm
> is slower on a computer. But evolution isn't
> perfect - an optimized algorithm might be much faster. Contrary to the
> popular opinion, I do not think
> computer speed is a requirement. Any computer will get anything done. It
> is just a matter of time.
>
> It is basically a brute force algorithm that searches for the highest
> amount of pleasure. It is like a chess
> program. And because emotion is vital for real-world tasks and perhaps
> generalized intelligence; a selfish
> friendly AI algorithm is essential to construct artificial general
> intelligence.
>
> But to recognize emotion of a person, we sometimes have to pretend we are
> that person. Theories suggest that
> "mirror neurons" perform empathy. But computers, and also theories suggest
> that autistic people do not have
> "mirror neurons". We have to find a way to emulate empathy: that is --
> using the selfish friendly AI
> algorithm.
>
> How do we implement the algorithm? It is a difficult question. There are
> many ways to implement it.
>
> My implementation: Knowledge is stored in a fuzzy "database". The
> algorithm searches through the
> entire database every time in response to external (and internal) stimuli,
> looking for connections or
> relations (relating to the stimulus). It recursively searches. Then, it
> chooses the most pleasurable ("goal")
> action to be performed (from knowledge stored in the database).
>
> I believe that behaviors of this implementation can be easily trained by
> operant conditioning. The training
> has to "gamble pain for pleasure". It has to get an immediate reward. But
> I don't know how to train the implementation for more complex tasks, like
> arithmetic. Single-digit addition is easy, but how do I generalize it to
> double digit addition? I find it hard to reduce the two-digit number to
> two discrete digits and add them. Similarly, autistic people seem to have
> trouble in this similar area. Pattern recognition might help, but it is
> too complex.
>
> Help me with the algorithm. Thank you
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> -----
> 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/?&;;
>
-----
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/?&;
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-----
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
