You're missing the *major* distinction between a "program structure that can
make decisions that would otherwise be vetoed by the utility function" and a
program that "can't even THINK ABOUT" a choice (both your choice of phrase).
Among other things not being able to even think about a choice prevents
accurately modeling the mental state of others who don't realize that you
have such a constraint. That seems like a very bad and limited architecture
to me.
----- Original Message -----
From: "J Storrs Hall, PhD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Nirvana
If you have a program structure that can make decisions that would
otherwise
be vetoed by the utility function, but get through because it isn't
executed
at the right time, to me that's just a bug.
Josh
On Thursday 12 June 2008 09:02:35 am, Mark Waser wrote:
> If you have a fixed-priority utility function, you can't even THINK
> ABOUT
> the
> choice. Your pre-choice function will always say "Nope, that's bad" and
> you'll be unable to change. (This effect is intended in all the RSI
> stability
> arguments.)
Doesn't that depend upon your architecture and exactly *when* the
pre-choice
function executes? If the pre-choice function operates immediately
pre-choice and only then, it doesn't necessarily interfere with option
exploration.
-------------------------------------------
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=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
