On Dec 7, 2007 7:42 PM, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, there would be a tremendous number of degrees of freedom, but there > would be a tremendous number of sources of guidance and review from the best > matching prior experiences of the past successes and failures of the most > similar perceptions, thoughts, or behaviors in the most similar contexts. > With such guidance, there is reason to believe that even a system large > enough to compute human-level world knowledge would stay largely within the > realm of common sense and not freak out. It should have enough randomness > to fairly often think strange new thoughts, but it should have enough > common-sense from its vase experiences to judge roughly as well as a human > when to, and when not to, act on such strange new ideas.
Ed, I believe that high-level control is instrumental not only to deliberation-level decision-making, but to very formation of system's low-level knowledge and behavior. Hebbian learning needs sufficient time to collect evidence before starting to reliably activate inferential link, lest it risks to disturb system's dynamics and create a bias with positive feedback. It makes fast learning and learning from few examples problematic. Learning can work much faster if it's assisted by recitation loops, which are triggered only for regularities that are deemed reasonable by higher-level processes (these processes can be just of slightly more higher level, I'm not talking about overall control). Also mechanism you describe is why I think it's OK to activate everything that activates: higher-level control (based on regeneration of typical patterns in recitation loops) should remove nonsense and at the same time teach system not to produce it again. -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- 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=73782244-94fe20
