Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: ... your tangled(*) system might be just as vulnerable to the problem as those thousands upon thousands of examples of complex systems that are *not* understandable...
To the best of my knowledge, nobody has *ever* used "intuitive understanding" to second-guess the stability of an artificial complex system in which those four factors were all present in the elements in a tightly coupled way. So that is all we have as a reply to the complex systems problem: engineers saying that they think they can just use "intuitive understanding" to get around it. Richard Loosemore ----------------------- I don't wish to sound petty about this, but your description (or any body's description) of the effects of the kind of complexity you are talking about would have to be developed using "intuitive understanding" as well. So the problems that are implied by your view (which must be intuitive) may not all be insurmountable. I appreciate your bringing us up to speed on your view about this. I think I agree with the premise that AGI would have to be complex (or exhibit some aspect of complexity) and that this complexity will be difficult to comprehend "intuitively". But that does not mean that we will never be able to develop and learn how to effectively utilize devices of the kind that we are talking about now. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- 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
