On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Saying >> that a particular cat instance hunts because it feels good >> is not very explanatory > > Even if I granted that, saying that a particular cat plays to increase > its hunting skills is incorrect. It's an important distinction because > by analogy we must talk about particular AGI instances. When we > talk about, for instance, whether an AGI will play, will it play because > it's trying to optimize its fitness, or because it is motivated in some > other way? We have to be that precise if we're talking about design.
Of course. Different optimization processes at work, different causes. Let's say (ignoring if it's actually so for the sake of illustration) that cat plays because it provides it with developmental advantage through training its nervous system, giving it better hunting skills, and so an adaptation that drives cat to play was chosen *by evolution*. Cat doesn't play because *it* reasons that it would give it superior hunting skills, cat plays because of the emotional drive installed by evolution (or a more general drive inherent in its cognitive dynamics). When AGI plays to get better at some skill, it may be either a result of programmer's advice, in which case play happens because *programmer* says so, or as a result of its own conclusion that play helps with skills, and if skills are desirable, play inherits the desirability. In the last case, play happens because AGI decides so, which in turn happens because there is a causal link from play to a desirable state of having superior skills. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.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
