Steve,
I just casually quoted this research, because it reinforced a v. general point
of mine.However, it is useful here. I think you're making a classical mistake,
which may be v. much linked to the AGI mindset I'm criticising.
That mindset, I think, says: "yes, AGI is about solving problems you don't know
how to. So I'll just set up an algorithm that instructs my AGI to engage, when
stuck, in a process of systematic trial and error... That way, my AGI will be
both algorithmic AND exploratory. and generative "
You seem to be saying something complementary here: "you just try various new
alternatives, and whichever on average, is better - you go with..It's logical."
Sounds ok in theory.
"It makes sense to try new options as they may prove advantageous in the long
run. For example, a monkey who chooses to deviate from its diet of bananas,
even if this involves moving to an unfamiliar part of the forest and eating a
new type of food, may find its diet enriched and more nutritious."
In practice, it doesn't work. You see, if you're that monkey, when do you go in
search of new food? You don't know how long it's going to take, you don't know
what dangers lie there, or what the weather will be like. Today? Now? In a
hour? Tomorrow? So you go... and there's nothing there.. do you keep looking?
And in the same part of the forest, because maybe you missed something; or in
another part? And how long do you spend? And which parts of trees and
undergrowth etc do you search? And how can you be sure that you've searched
thoroughly? And which senses do you use? And what do you do if there's a
strange plant you've never seen, and you're not even sure if it is a plant,
etc. etc. (I just watched a movie, Finding Amanda, in which a guy can't
remember where in his *room*, let alone a forest, he hid his casino winnings, &
can't find them even after taking the room apart - though the maid does
afterwards).
"Trying something new" is vastly more complicated than it sounds - there are in
fact virtually infinite possibilities, most of which you won't have thought of,
at all. How do you even know you've made a mistake in the first place, that
warrants trying something new? How do you know you just didn't persist long
enough?
We're continually dealing with problematic problems, and the thing about them -
is - LOGIC DOESN'T APPLY. There is no such thing as a systematic trial and
error approach to them - not one that can work. That's why creativity is so
*demonstrably* hard and such a eureka business when you get an idea.
How do I invest in the stockmarket now? Buy up shares at their v. low current
prices, and wait a few years? That HAS to work, right - it's logical? If you'd
tried it with Japan in 1989, you'd still be in the red. There are no
satisfactory algorithms for dealing with the stockmarket. There are some that
may work at the moment - but only for a while, until the market changes
radically..
And all problematic problems can be treated as stockmarket problems - in which
you have to decide how to invest limited amounts of time and effort and
resources, with highly limited, imperfect knowledge of the options, and sources
of information, and un-precisely-quantifiable risks and deadlines.
Problematic problems have infinite possibilities - and that's why humans are
designed the way they are - not to be sure of anything. You're all dealing with
the problematic problem of AGI - is there literally a single thing that anyone
of you is sure of in relation to AGI? You ought to be, if you were
algorithmically designed.. But nature is still a lot smarter than AGI. You
haven't been given an instinctive trial-and-error system.
Any approach to trial and error, has itself to be a matter of trial and error.
You personally, Steve, seem to be making a further, related mistake here. And
you can correct me. As I understand, you want to construct a general
problem-solver, adapted from Eliza that can solve problems in many fields not
just health. Sounds in principle good. Something more limited than a true AGI,
but still v. useful.
You're aware, though, as no one else in AGI seems to be, that in every field of
culture, you face major conflicts. There isn't a single field where experts
aren't deeply split and don't divide into conflicting schools. That obviously
poses major difficulties for any general problem-solver, let alone a superAGI.
Your mistake - as I understand it - is that you think you can *logically*
resolve these conflicts. The reason everyone is so divided everywhere is that
they're dealing with problematic problems to which there is no logical or right
answer. What's the best treatment for cancer? What's the best way to do AGI
now? What's the best way to deal with the economy, the petrol problem, Iraq
etc etc? No matter how you - or even a superAGI - "drills down" into these
problems, people will still be fighting tooth and nail about their "solutions."
Understandably. It may be unfortunate, but conflict is intellectually
justified and even good for us when we don't know the answers.
So I suspect a general but limited multi-field problem-solver won't work for
this and other reasons - although it's certainly worth thinking about.
Mike,
Isn't this sort of behavior completely logical? If you try something new and
it is bad, then you have had one bad experience. However, if it is good, then
you have many good experiences. Hence. the average value of trying something
new is many times the value of the best thing that you now have access to,
because of this multiplicative effect.
IMHO, illogical researchers were looking for an "illogical" (to them)
phenomenon that was in fact completely logical.
Jim's God
Steve Richfield
===============
On 6/27/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jim's God was obviously listening to my last post, because I immediately
came across this. I wouldn't make too much of it directly, but let me redefine
its significance - there are parts of the brain and body that LIKE not knowing
what to do, that LIKE creative, non-algorithmic problems. All you've got to do
now is work out how to design a computer like that:
"Neuroscientists discover a sense of adventure
Wellcome Trust scientists have identified a key region of the brain which
encourages us to be adventurous. The region, located in a primitive area of the
brain, is activated when we choose unfamiliar options, suggesting an
evolutionary advantage for sampling the unknown. It may also explain why
re-branding of familiar products encourages to pick them off the supermarket
shelves.
In an experiment carried out at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging
at UCL (University College London), volunteers were shown a selection of
images, which they had already been familiarised with. Each card had a unique
probability of reward attached to it and over the course of the experiment, the
volunteers would be able to work out which selection would provide the highest
rewards. However, when unfamiliar images were introduced, the researchers found
that volunteers were more likely to take a chance and select one of these
options than continue with their familiar - and arguably safer - option.
Using fMRI scanners, which measure blood flow in the brain to highlight
which areas are most active, Dr Bianca Wittmann and colleagues showed that when
the subjects selected an unfamiliar option, an area of the brain known as the
ventral striatum lit up, indicating that it was more active. The ventral
striatum is in one of the evolutionarily primitive regions of the brain,
suggesting that the process can be advantageous and will be shared by many
animals.
"Seeking new and unfamiliar experiences is a fundamental behavioural
tendency in humans and animals," says Dr Wittmann. "It makes sense to try new
options as they may prove advantageous in the long run. For example, a monkey
who chooses to deviate from its diet of bananas, even if this involves moving
to an unfamiliar part of the forest and eating a new type of food, may find its
diet enriched and more nutritious."
When we make a particular choice or carry out a particular action which
turns out to be beneficial, it is rewarded by a release of neurotransmitters
such as dopamine. These rewards help us learn which behaviours are preferable
and advantageous and worth repeating. The ventral striatum is one of the key
areas involved in processing rewards in the brain. Although the researchers
cannot say definitively from the fMRI scans how novelty seeking is being
rewarded, Dr Wittmann believes it is likely to be through dopamine release.
However, whilst rewarding the brain for making novel choices may prove
advantageous in encouraging us to make potentially beneficial choices, it may
also make us more susceptible to exploitation.
"I might have my own favourite choice of chocolate bar, but if I see a
different bar repackaged, advertising its 'new, improved flavour', my search
for novel experiences may encourage me to move away from my usual choice," says
Dr Wittmann. "This introduces the danger of being sold 'old wine in a new skin'
and is something that marketing departments take advantage of."
Rewarding the brain for novel choices could have a more serious side
effect, argues Professor Nathaniel Daw, now at New York University, who also
worked on the study.
"The novelty bonus may be useful in helping us make complex, uncertain
decisions, but it clearly has a downside," says Professor Daw. "In humans,
increased novelty-seeking may play a role in gambling and drug addiction, both
of which are mediated by malfunctions in dopamine release."
Source: Wellcome Trust
http://www.physorg.com/news133617811.html
-------------------------------------------
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 | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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=106510220-47b225
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
