On 2/16/08, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kaj Sotala wrote: > > Well, the basic gist was this: you say that AGIs can't be constructed > > with built-in goals, because a "newborn" AGI doesn't yet have built up > > the concepts needed to represent the goal. Yet humans seem tend to > > have built-in (using the term a bit loosely, as all goals do not > > manifest in everyone) goals, despite the fact that newborn humans > > don't yet have built up the concepts needed to represent those goals. > > > Oh, complete agreement here. I am only saying that the idea of a > "built-in goal" cannot be made to work in an AGI *if* one decides to > build that AGI using a "goal-stack" motivation system, because the > latter requires that any goals be expressed in terms of the system's > knowledge. If we step away from that simplistic type of GS system, and > instead use some other type of motivation system, then I believe it is > possible for the system to be motivated in a coherent way, even before > it has the explicit concepts to talk about its motivations (it can > pursue the goal "seek Momma's attention" long before it can explicitly > represent the concept of [attention], for example).
Alright. But previously, you said that Omohundro's paper, which to me seemed to be a general analysis of the behavior of *any* minds with (more or less) explict goals, looked like it was based on a 'goal-stack' motivation system. (I believe this has also been the basis of your critique for e.g. some SIAI articles about friendliness.) If built-in goals *can* be constructed into motivational system AGIs, then why do you seem to assume that AGIs with built-in goals are goal-stack ones? > The way to get around that problem is to notice two things. One is that > the sex drives can indeed be there from the very beginning, but in very > mild form, just waiting to be kicked into high gear later on. I think > this accounts for a large chunk of the explanation (there is evidence > for this: some children are explictly thinking engaged in sex-related > activities at the age of three, at least). The second part of the > explanation is that, indeed, the human mind *does* have trouble making a > an easy connection to those later concepts: sexual ideas do tend to get > attached to the most peculiar behaviors. Perhaps this is a sigh that > the hook-up process is not straightforward. This sounds like the beginnings of the explanation, yes. -- http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tspro1/ | http://xuenay.livejournal.com/ Organizations worth your time: http://www.singinst.org/ | http://www.crnano.org/ | http://lifeboat.com/ ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
