Abram Demski wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The ... the moment I want to ignore computational resources...
Ok but what are you getting at?
I had a friend who would win arguments in high school by saying
"what's your point?" after a long back-and-forth, shifting the burden
on me to show that what I was arguing was not only true but
important... which it often wasn't. :)
Part of the point is to answer the question "What do we mean when we
refer to mathematical entities?". Part of the point is to find the
point is to find the correct logic, rejecting the notion that logics
are simply different, not better or worse*. Part of the point is that
I am worried-- worried that an AGI system based on anything less than
the one most powerful logic will be able to fool AGI researchers for a
long time into thinking that it is capable of general intelligence.
Several examples-- Artificial neural networks in their currently most
popular form are limited to models that a logical might call
"0th-order" or "propositional", not even first-order, yet they are
powerful enough to solve many problems. It is thus easy to think that...
FWIW, I doubt that any AGI is actually possible. I'm reasonably certain
that it's possible to get closer than people are, but we aren't really
even an attempt at a fully general AI. I have a strong suspicion that
things analogous the the halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness
theorem are lurking.
As such, I don't think it's reasonable to worry about implementing the
"most powerful logic". Anything that gets implemented will be
incomplete (or self-contradictory). People seem to have evolved to go
with self-contradictory.
As such, my "solution" is like the solution to the "global maximization
of hill-climbing"...the best solution is to start in lots of different
places that each find their own local optimum. You still won't find the
global optimum except by chance, but you can get a lot closer. I don't
like thinking of this as relaxation or annealing, but I'm not sure why.
Possibly because they usually use smaller chunks than I think best. I
don't think the surface is sufficiently homogeneous to use the same
approach in every locale, except on a very large scale. (And by writing
this I'm probably revealing my ignorance [profound] of the techniques.)
-------------------------------------------
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=111637683-c8fa51
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
