Josh: Any well designed AI system should not have the masturbatory tendencies
to take unjustified risks.
Josh,
Jeez, you guys will not face reality. MOST of the problems we deal with involve
risks (and uncertainty). That's what human intelligence does most of the time -
that's what any adaptive intelligence does & will have to do - deal with
problems involving risks and uncertainty. Even your superduperintelligence will
have to face those too. (Who knows how those pesky, rebellious humans may try
to resist its benevolent decisions?) Let me quote again
Most of the problems that we face in our everyday lives are ill-defined
problems. In contrast, psychologists have focussed mainly on well-defined
problems. Why have they done this? One important reason is because well-defined
problems have a best strategy for their solution. As a result it is usually
easy to identify the errors and deficiencies in the strategies adopted by human
problem-solvers..
Michael Eysenck, Principles of Cognitive Psychology, East Sussex: Psychology
Press 2001
You guys are similarly copping out - dealing with the easy rather than the hard
(risk & uncertainty) problems - the ones with the neat answers, as opposed to
the ones that are open-ended. The AI as opposed to the AGI problems.
Won't somebody actually deal with the problem - how will your AGI system
decide to invest or not to invest $10,000 in a Chinese mutual fund tomorrow?
(You guys are supposed to be in the problem-solving business).
Mark, it seems that you're missing the point. We as humans aren't ABSOLUTELY
CERTAIN of anything. But we are perfectly capable of operating on the fine
line between assumed certainty and uncertainty. We KNOW that molecules are
made of up bonded atoms, but past a certain point, we can't say what a basic
unit of energy is. But we know what a molecule looks like so we can bond atoms
to form them. Much is the same with intelligence. We simply mimic behaviors
and find parallels in code and systems. If we can prove that a turing machine
is universal, or that a code base is universal, then there must be some
configuration of code that is capable of representing every subatomic
interaction occurring in our universe down to the most minute detail, thus
duplicating our experience entirely (regardless of the fact that this would
take several universe lifetimes to do manually). So if this is plausible, it's
perfectly sound to discuss optimization of the stated code. Our brains (and
their emergent trait of our fancy, intelligence) are a much smaller piece of
this (computable) chemical puzzle. Since they were derived through evolution
(the high intelligence, low efficiency topic), there are many inefficient
mechanisms that have evolved for reasons other than exponentially increasing
our brains processing power. Why is this hard to grasp?
In terms of your investment question, it's all a matter of needs. That is a
simple risk assessment. To any intelligent being, the money gained is only an
ends to a means. To an AI interested in furthering it's knowledge, or
bettering mankind (or machine kind), money simply means more energy, power,
resources, etc. Ultimately, if your goal is just to amass money without any
reasoning, your goals system is flawed. Any well designed AI system should not
have the masturbatory tendencies to take unjustified risks. We're talking
about multiple priority levels here. The Nash equilibrium would be sought
after on many levels. The computer is going to give the system it's best shot
and guess.
On 5/17/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pei: AI is about "what is the best solution to a problem if
> the system has INSUFFICIENT knowledge and resources".
Just so. I have just spent the last hour thinking about this area, and you
have spoken the line I allotted to you almost perfectly.
Your definition is a CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.
If a system has insufficient knowledge there is NO BEST, no "optimal,"
solution to any decision - that's a fiction.
If a system is uncertain, there is no certain way to deal with it.
If there is no right answer, there really is no right answer.
The whole of science has spent the last hundred years caught in the above
contradiction. Recognizing uncertainty and risk everywhere - and then
trying
to find a "certain," "right", "optimal", way to deal with them. This runs
right through science. "Oh yes, we can see that life is incredibly
problematic and uncertain... but this is the certain, best way to deal
with
it."
So science has developed games theory - arguably the most important theory
of behaviour - and then spent its energies trying to find the right way to
play games. The perfect equilibrium etc. And missed the whole point. There
is no right way to play games - on the few occasions that one is discovered,
(and there are a few occasions and situations), people STOP PLAYING IT -
because it ceases to be a proper game,and it ceases to be a model of real
life.In one sense, it's no wonder Nash went mad..
But scientists and techie's so badly want a right answer, they haven't been
able to admit there isn't one.
"What made [Stephen Jay] Gould unique as a scientist was that he had a
historian's mind and not an engineer's. He liked mess, confusion and
contradiction. Most scientists, in my experience, are the opposite. They are
engineers at heart. They think the world is made up of puzzles, and
somewhere out there is the one correct solution to every puzzle."
Andrew Brown
Hey, this is a fundamentally pluralistic world, not a [behaviourally]
monistic one. Deal with it:
Here's a simple problem for you with insufficient knowledge and resources::
you have $10,000 to invest tomorrow. You're thinking of investing in a
Chinese stockmarket mutual fund, because the market is on the up and you
reckon there could be a lot of money still to be made. (And there really
could). On the other hand, maybe it's a crazy bubble about to burst, and you
could lose a lot of money too. So what do you do tomorrow - buy or do
nothing - invest or keep your money in that savings account?
What's the "best" decision, or the best way of reaching a decision, or the
best way of finding a way of reaching a decision- in the next 24 hours (or,
in the end, in any time period)? [And what do you think, Ben?]
If you don't have the "best" answer, then your whole approach both to
defining and implementing intelligence is fundamentally flawed. A few
hundred million investors will be waiting to hear your reply. They'd love
to
know the best answer. No more need for all these different schools of
investors to argue so furiously, no more need for all these schools just of
investment AI/ computation alone to keep arguing either.Pei's cracked it,
guys. Over here.
You really would do well to think very long and hard about that simple
problem - it will change your life. I hope you will have the courage to
answer the problem.
(BTW MOST of the problems humans face in everyday life can be represented
as
investment problems - it's a basic, not an eccentric problem).
-----
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 message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
Josh Treadwell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
480-206-3776
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/?&;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.1/807 - Release Date: 16/05/2007
18:05
-----
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
