----- Original Message ----
From: "J Storrs Hall, PhD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The paper can be found at
http://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/nature_of_self_improving_ai.pdf
Read the appendix, p37ff. He's not making arguments -- he's explaining, with a
few pointers into the literature, some parts of completely standard and
accepted economics and game theory. It's all very basic stuff.
----------------------------
I think Omohundro is making arguments, or providing reasoning, to support his
views that the application of rational economic theory and game theory would
tend to make an advanced agi system capable of self-improvement. I don't think
anyone would say that is an accepted viewpoint! (I may not know what you are
talking about; that has actually happened on a few occasions believe it or not.
And this may be a different paper than the one that was previously being
discussed.)
I am not in complete disagreement with Loosemore because I do not believe that
Omohundro's view is well founded. But my main disagreement with Loosemore is
that I object to his exaggerated claims like the one he made when he said that
Omohundro is just pulling conclusions out of thin air. That argument can be
made against any and all of us until someone actually produces a truly advanced
AI program. I think Omohundro is pulling some assumptions out of thin air, but
that is acceptable in a conjectural discussion.
So far, I have found Omohundro's paper to be one of the more enjoyable papers I
have read recently. But that does not mean that I agree with what he says. I
think that Omohundro should use a slightly higher level of criticism of his own
ideas, but on the other hand, there is also a need to occasionally express some
opinions that might not meet the higher level of criticism.
The more general a comment is, the more it tends to be an opinion. So the
views I expressed here are really opinions that I have not supported. I would
have to work much harder to discuss one of Omohundro's ideas in any detail.
But if I wanted to attack (or support) something that he wrote, I would have to
do at least a little extra work so that I could make sure that I do understand
him. If that was what I wanted to do, I would draw a few quotes from his paper
to argue for or against the apparent intent and perspective that I felt he was
expressing.
But maybe I found a different paper than was being discussed. I noticed that
the abstract he wrote for his paper was not written too well (in my opinion).
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=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
