Hi Mike, As may be obvious by now, I'm not that interested in designing cognition. I'm interested in designing simulations in which intelligent behavior emerges.
But the way you're using the word 'adapt', in a cognitive sense of playing with goals, is different from the way I was using 'adaptation', which is the result of an evolutionary process. Terren --- On Mon, 8/25/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [agi] How Would You Design a Play Machine? > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 3:41 PM > Terren, > > Your broad distinctions are fine, but I feel you are not > emphasizing the > area of most interest for AGI, which is *how* we adapt > rather than why. > Interestingly, your blog uses the example of a screwdriver > - Kauffman uses > the same in Chap 12 of Reinventing the Sacred as an example > of human > creativity/divergence - i.e. our capacity to find infinite > uses for a > screwdriver. > > "Do we think we could write an algorithm, an effective > procedure, to > generate a possibly infinite list of all possible uses of > screwdrivers in > all possible circumstances, some of which do not yet exist? > I don't think we > could get started." > > What "emerges" here, v. usefully, is that the > capacity for play overlaps > with classically-defined, and a shade more rigorous and > targeted, divergent > thinking, e.g. "find as many uses as you can for a > screwdriver, rubber teat, > needle etc". > > ...How would you design a divergent (as well as play) > machine that can deal > with the above open-ended problems? (Again surely essential > for an AGI) > > With full general intelligence, the problem more typically > starts with the > function-to-be-fulfilled - e.g. how do you open this paint > can? - and only > then do you search for a novel tool, like a screwdriver or > another can lid. > > > > Terren:> Actually, kittens play because it's fun. > Evolution has equipped > them with the rewarding sense of fun because it optimizes > their fitness as > hunters. But kittens are adaptation executors, evolution is > the fitness > optimizer. It's a subtle but important distinction. > > > > See > http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/adaptation-exec.html > > > > Terren > > > > They're adaptation executors, not fitness > optimizers. > > > > --- On Mon, 8/25/08, Matt Mahoney > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Kittens play with small moving objects because it > teaches > >> them to be better hunters. Play is not a goal in > itself, but > >> a subgoal that may or may not be a useful part of > a > >> successful AGI design. > >> > >> -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: Mike Tintner > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: [email protected] > >> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 8:59:06 AM > >> Subject: Re: [agi] How Would You Design a Play > Machine? > >> > >> Brad, > >> > >> That's sad. The suggestion is for a mental > exercise, > >> not a full-scale > >> project. And play is fundamental to the human > mind-and-body > >> - it > >> characterises our more mental as well as more > physical > >> activities - > >> drawing, designing, scripting, humming and singing > scat in > >> the bath, > >> dreaming/daydreaming & much more. It is > generally > >> acknowledged by > >> psychologists to be an essential dimension of > creativity - > >> which is the goal > >> of AGI. It is also an essential dimension of > animal > >> behaviour and animal > >> evolution. Many of the smartest companies have > their play > >> areas. > >> > >> But I'm not aware of any program or computer > design for > >> play - as distinct > >> from elaborating systematically and methodically > or > >> "genetically" on > >> themes - are you? In which case it would be good > to think > >> about one - it'll > >> open your mind & give you new perspectives. > >> > >> This should be a group where people are not too > frightened > >> to play around > >> with ideas. > >> > >> Brad:> Mike Tintner wrote: "...how would > you design > >> a play machine - a > >> machine > >> > that can play around as a child does?" > >> > > >> > I wouldn't. IMHO that's just another > waste of > >> time and effort (unless > >> > it's being done purely for research > purposes). > >> It's a diversion of > >> > intellectual and financial resources that > those > >> serious about building an > >> > AGI any time in this century cannot afford. > I firmly > >> believe if we had > >> > not set ourselves the goal of developing > human-style > >> intelligence > >> > (embodied or not) fifty years ago, we would > already > >> have a working, > >> > non-embodied AGI. > >> > > >> > Turing was wrong (or at least he was wrongly > >> interpreted). Those who > >> > extended his imitation test to humanoid, > embodied AI > >> were even more wrong. > >> > We *do not need embodiment* to be able to > build a > >> powerful AGI that can be > >> > of immense utility to humanity while also > surpassing > >> human intelligence in > >> > many ways. To be sure, we want that AGI to > be > >> empathetic with human > >> > intelligence, but we do not need to make it > equivalent > >> (i.e., "just like > >> > us"). > >> > > >> > I don't want to give the impression that > a > >> non-Turing intelligence will be > >> > easy to design and build. It will probably > require at > >> least another > >> > twenty years of "two steps forward, one > step > >> back" effort. So, if we are > >> > going to develop a non-human-like, > non-embodied AGI > >> within the first > >> > quarter of this century, we are going to have > to > >> "just say no" to Turing > >> > and start to use human intelligence as an > inspiration, > >> not a destination. > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > > >> > Brad > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Mike Tintner wrote: > >> >> Just a v. rough, first thought. An > essential > >> requirement of an AGI is > >> >> surely that it must be able to play - so > how would > >> you design a play > >> >> machine - a machine that can play around > as a > >> child does? > >> >> > >> >> You can rewrite the brief as you choose, > but my > >> first thoughts are - it > >> >> should be able to play with > >> >> a) bricks > >> >> b)plasticine > >> >> c) handkerchiefs/ shawls > >> >> d) toys [whose function it doesn't > know] > >> >> and > >> >> e) draw. > >> >> > >> >> Something that should be soon obvious is > that a > >> robot will be vastly more > >> >> flexible than a computer, but if you want > to do it > >> all on computer, fine. > >> >> > >> >> How will it play - manipulate things > every which > >> way? > >> >> What will be the criteria of learning - > of having > >> done something > >> >> interesting? > >> >> How do infants, IOW, play? > >> >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------- > >> 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/?&; > >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > 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/?&; > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- 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
