Thank you! This feeds back into the feedback discussion, in a way, at a high level. There's a significant difference between research programming and production programming. The production programmer is building something which if (nominally) understood and planned ahead of time. The researcher is putting together something new to see if it works. All the knowledge flow goes from production programmer to the system. The important element of knowledge is supposed to flow from the system to the researcher.
This is important because AGIers are researchers (if we have any sense). We have a lot to learn about generally intelligent systems. But even more to the point is the fact that our systems themselves must be research programmers. To learn about a new thing, they must program themselves to be able to recognize, predict, and/or imitate it. So it's worth our time to watch ourselves programming because that's one thing our systems will have to do too. As for the theory, I said I think there is one, not that I necessarily know what it is :-) However, you can begin with the observation that if your architecture is a network of sigmas, it's clearly necessary to provide the full context and sensory information to each sigma for it to record the appropriate trajectory in its local memory. (Anyone interested: sigmas are explained in somewhat more detail in Ch. 13 of Beyond AI) On Monday 21 April 2008 09:47:53 pm, Derek Zahn wrote: > Josh writes:> You see, I happen to think that there *is* a consistent, general, overall > theory of the function of feedback throughout the architecture. And I think > that once it's understood and widely applied, a lot of the architectures > (repeat: a *lot* of the architectures) we have floating around here will > suddenly start working a lot better. > Want to share this theory? :) > > Oh, by the way, of the ones I read so far, I thought your Variac paper was the most interesting one from AGI-08. I'm particularly interested to hear more about sigmas and your thoughts on transparent, composable, and robust programming languages. I used to think about some slightly related topics and thought more in terms of evolvability and plasticity (and did not consider opaqueness at all) but I think your approach to thinking about things is quite exciting. > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.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=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
