I agree Richard, lets bury the hatchet on this one. I think the truth is obvious to any one who has read your blog and followed the various thread of this argument on this list. Ed Porter
-----Original Message----- From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [agi] THE NEWEST REVELATIONS ABOUT RICHARD'S COMPLEXITY THEORIES Ed, This is just garbled. And insulting, too: you try to imply that I have changed my stance, when in fact I have said the same thing throughout, but you keep finding new ways to get completely confused about what I have said. My point has always been that all those systems only work to a limited extent, and one reason they only work to a limited extent is that they try to pretend that cognition is not complex. I am not going to explain anything else to you, because whatever I say, you get confused and then launch even more accusations than before. Sorry, but this is too silly. Bye. Richard Loosemore Ed Porter wrote: > Richard, > > The most important point in your below post is your newly introduced > limitation that your four features of design doom don't necessarily prevent > design of many AI systems --- but are --- you believe --- very likely to > cause design doom in very large AGI systems --- such as human-level systems > --- that are extremely complex (in the old fashioned sense) --- > particularly, once they have done a tremendous amount of self modification, > in the sense of automatic learning and adaptation. > > It actually makes sense that as a system becomes vastly more complex --- as > I believe any human level AGI's will have to be --- that complexity --- in > the sense of systems that are hard to properly control --- might become a > problem. > > But since you now have admit the four features of design doom haven't doomed > design in some many current AI --- which presumbably includes current large > AI's like SOAR and LIDA --- there is nothing in your blog (at least as of > last night) or your response below to provide any indication of how large a > system has to be --- or how much of each of the four factors are required > --- for design doom to occur. And there does not appear to be anything > other than a hunch --- on your part --- as to at what size design doom > becomes nearly or actually inevitable. > > The Googleplex arguably has the four design features of doom and it has run > for roughly a decade adapting its indexes to arguably more information than > many full AGI systems may over their lifetimes, and it has remained > remarkably stable. It has memory. It has development in the sense of > automatically adapting its indexes. It has Identity at least in the sense > of identifying individual users and presumably types of users for use in > placing adds. Finally it has non-linearity in much of its decision making, > such as in handling word forms, etc. > > The Googleplex is less likely to have design doom problems than some AGIs > --- but it s not clear by how much, since your blog provide no math for > estimating where --- in a design space having as dimensions the four > features of design doom (and perhaps other parameters) --- design doom is > likely to kick in and to what degree. > > So Richard it does not appear your theory of Richard-complexity --- with its > the four features of design doom and its concepts of "untouchability" -- as > it relates to AGI has added anything solid to the AGI community's > understanding other than that when we build large automatically running > AGI's there might well be complexity problems that may present very real, > and possibly, extremely difficult problems. > > I have said for years --- long before I ever heard of Richard-complexity --- > that the only really big problem I know of in making human level AI --- > (other than getting the massively parallel and highly interconnected > hardware and the software tools to program on it) --- is getting it all to > work together well automatically. It doesn't appear your theory adds > anything to that except a greater degree of doubt about whether we humans > are smart enough to solve that problem. > > ---------- > Now I will indicate my comments on other parts of your response. > >> ====RICHARD====> > Ed, > > You have put words into my mouth: I have never tried to argue that a > narrow-AI system cannot work at all. > > (Narrow AI is what you are referring to above: it must be narrow AI, > because there have not been any fully functioning *AGI* systems > delivered yet, and you refr to systems that have been built). > > ====ED=========> > I did not put words in your mouth. When I used AI I was using the term to > include both narrow AI and AGI, since both are AI systems (So its not a > strained interpretation I was intending) > > There have been multiple systems such as SOAR and, I think, LIDA which seem > to apply a common automatic learning and behaving architecture to many > different types of problems, and thus can be considers AGI's. > >> ====RICHARD====> > The point of my argument is to claim that such narrow AI systems CANNOT > BE EXTENDED TO BECOME AGI SYSTEMS. The complex systems problem predicts > that when people allow those four factors listed above to operate in a > full AGI context, where the system is on its own for a lifetime, the > complexity effects will then dominate. > > ====ED=========> > Well, I wish you had said this in your blog. It does not appear to make any > limitation that design doom depends on system being as large as huge AGI > system. In fact it says, speaking of the Four Features of Design Doom: > > "These four characteristics are enough. Go take a look at a natural system > in physics, or an engineering system, and find one in which the components > of the system interact with memory, development, identity and nonlinearity. > You will not find any that are understood." > > This language implies design doom would occur on any system with these for > features. Thus, it implies just the opposite of what you call the "point of > your argument" in your paragraph above. > >> ====RICHARD====> > .. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [agi] Adding to the extended essay on the complex systems > problem > > Ed Porter wrote: >> Richard, >> In your blog you said: >> >> "- Memory. Does the mechanism use stored information about what it was >> doing fifteen minutes ago, when it is making a decision about what to do >> now? An hour ago? A million years ago? Whatever: if it remembers, >> then it has memory. >> >> "- Development. Does the mechanism change its character in some way >> over time? Does it adapt? >> >> "- Identity. Do individuals of a certain type have their own unique >> identities, so that the result of an interaction depends on more than >> the type of the object, but also the particular individuals involved? >> >> "- Nonlinearity. Are the functions describing the behavior deeply >> nonlinear? >> >> These four characteristics are enough. Go take a look at a natural >> system in physics, or an engineering system, and find one in which the >> components of the system interact with memory, development, identity and >> nonlinearity. You will not find any that are understood. >> >> ". >> >> "Notice, above all, that no engineer has ever tried to persuade one of >> these artificial systems to conform to a pre-chosen overall behavior.." >> >> >> >> >> >> I am quite sure there have been many AI system that have had all four of >> these features and that have worked pretty much as planned and whose >> behavior is reasonably well understood (although not totally understood, >> as is nothing that is truly complex in the non-Richard sense), and whose >> overall behavior has been as chosen by design (with a little >> experimentation thrown in) . To be fair I can't remember any off the >> top of my head, because I have read about many AI systems over the >> years. But recording episodes is very common in many prior AI systems. >> So is adaptation. Nonlinearity is almost universal, and Identity as you >> define it would be pretty common. >> >> >> >> So, please --- other people on this list help me out --- but I am quite >> sure system have been built that prove the above quoted statement to be >> false. > > Ed, > > You have put words into my mouth: I have never tried to argue that a > narrow-AI system cannot work at all. > > (Narrow AI is what you are referring to above: it must be narrow AI, > because there have not been any fully functioning *AGI* systems > delivered yet, and you refr to systems that have been built). > > The point of my argument is to claim that such narrow AI systems CANNOT > BE EXTENDED TO BECOME AGI SYSTEMS. The complex systems problem predicts > that when people allow those four factors listed above to operate in a > full AGI context, where the system is on its own for a lifetime, the > complexity effects will then dominate. > > In effect, what I am claiming is that people have been masking the > complexity effects by mollycoddling their systems in various ways, and > by not allowing them to run for long periods of time, or in general > environments, or to ground their own symbols. > > I would predict that when people do this "mollycoddling" of their AI > systems, the complex systems effects would not become apparent very soon. > > Guess what? That exactly fits the observed history of AI. When people > try to make these AI systems operate in ways that brings out the > complexity, the systems fail. > > > > Richard Loosemore > > > > > P.S. Please don't call it "Richard-complexity" .... it has nothing to > do with me: this is "complexity" the way that lots of people understand > the term. If you need to talk about the concept that is the opposite of > simple, it would be better to use "complicated". Personalizing it just > creates confusion. > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/?&; > 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/?&; 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
