Richard Loosemore wrote:
...
However, just exactly what is the relationship between these different choices of design at the lowest level, and the 'power' of the overall system? Is it the case, for example, that a system like the two I just described could be improved to an arbitrary extent by adding new, more subtle combinations of truth values, confidence intervals, and so on? If we added enough machinery to the truth-value part of the design, would we always be able to find a way to get from our initial design to a design that had human-level intelligence?

Or, is it possible that the initial choice of design could never be improved up to the human level, no matter what truth-value stuff was added to it? Could it be that other aspects of the initial design have already boxed it into a You-Can't-Get-There-From-Here situation?
...
My intuition is that, yes, there is a complexity requirement, but that it's rather low at the basic component stage. Sort of like the minimal system to fail to be both complete and consistent. This doesn't imply that it might not be much easier to design an AGI with a more complex set of initial properties, or that such a design might not require fewer bytes. That "feels" like a matter of reaching a proper balance, and even then needing proper choice of components for optimal design. But I don't feel that there's only one, or only a few, initial choices that could work. Just that some will prove to be much easier than others.

Note that this is all feel with nothing in the way of proof, and very little in the way of experiment. But it's a very strong feeling, and it would need to be an extremely convincing argument to change my mind. (It wouldn't require a proof. It's not THAT certain of a feeling.)




-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to