Well...
Have you ever tried to understand the code created by a decompiler?
Especially if the original language that was compiled isn't the one that
you are decompiling into...
I'm not certain that just because we can look at the code of a working
AGI, that we can therefore understand it. Not without a *LOT* of
commentary and explanation of what the purpose of certain
constructions/functions/etc. are. And maybe not then. Understanding a
working AGI may require a deeper stack than we possess, or a greater
ability to handle global variables. And when code is self-modifying it
gets particularly tricky. I remember one sort routine that I
encountered that called a short function in assembler. The reason for
that call was a particular instruction that got overwritten with a
binary value that depended on the parameters to the call. That
instruction was executed during the comparison step of the loop, which
was nowhere near the place where it was modified. It was a very short
routine, but it took a long time to figure out. And it COULDN'T be
translated into the calling language (FORTRAN). Well...a translation of
sorts was possible, but it would have been over three times as long
(with a separate loop for each kind of input parameter, plus some
overhead for the testing and switching). Which would mean that some
programs then wouldn't fit in the machine that was running them. It
would also have been slower. Which means more expensive.
Current languages don't have the same restrictions that Fortran had
then, they've got different ones. I think the "translator from actual
code into code for humans" would be considerably more complicated than
an ordinary compiler, if the original code was written by an AI.
Perhaps even it not. (Most decompilers only handle the easy parts of
the code. Sometimes that's over 90%, but the code that's left can be
tricky...particularly since most people no longer learn assembler. It's
been perhaps 3 decades since I knew the assembler of the computer I was
programming.)
I don't think an optimizing AI would use any language other than
assembler to write in, though perhaps a stylized one. (Not MIX or
p-code. Possibly Parrot or jvm code. Possibly something created
specially for it to use for it's purpose. Something regular, but easily
translated into almost optimal assembler code for the machine that it
was running on.)
FWIW, most of this is just my ideas, without any backing of "expert in
the field" since I've never built a mechanical translator.
Dennis Gorelik wrote:
Ed,
1) Human-level AGI with access to current knowledge base cannot build
AGI. (Humans can't)
2) When AGI is developed, humans will be able to build AGI (by copying
successful AGI models). The same with human-level AGI -- it will be
able to copy successful AGI model.
But that's not exactly self-building AGI you are looking for :-)
3) Humans have different level intelligence and skills. Not all are
able to develop programs. The same is true regarding AGI.
Friday, November 30, 2007, 10:20:08 AM, you wrote:
Computers are currently designed by human-level intellitences, so presumably
they could be designed by human-level AGI's. (Which if they were human-level
in the tasks that are currently hard for computers means they could be
millions of times faster than humans for tasks at which computers already
way out perform us.) I mention that "appropriate reading and training" would
be required, and I assumed this included access to computer science and
computer technology sources, which the peasants of the middle age would not
have access.
So I don't understand your problem.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Gorelik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 1:01 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [agi] Self-building AGI
Ed,
At the current stages this may be true, but it should be remembered that
building a human-level AGI would be creating a machine that would itself,
with the appropriate reading and training, be able to design and program
AGIs.
No.
AGI is not necessarily that capable. In fact first versions of AGI
would not be that capable for sure.
Consider middle age peasant, for example. Such peasant has general
intelligence ("GI" part in "AGI"), right?
What kind of training would you provide to such peasant in order to
make him design 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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=71202814-4efdc4
