On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If an AGI played because it recognized that it would improve its skills in > some domain, then I wouldn't call that play, I'd call it practice. Those are > overlapping but distinct concepts. > The evolution of play is how nature has convinced us to practice skills of a general but un-predefinable type. Would it make sense to think of practice as the narrow AI version of play? Part of play is the specification of arbitrary goals and limitations within the overlying process. Games without rules aren't 'fun' to people or kittens. > > Play, as distinct from pactice, is its own reward - the reward felt by a > kitten. The spirit of Mike's question, I think, was about identifying the > essential goalless-ness of play, the sense in which playing fosters > adaptivity of goals. If you really want to interpret goal-satisfaction in > play, it must be a meta-goal of mastering one's environment - and that is > such a broadly defined goal that I don't see how one could specify it to a > seed AI. I believe that's why evolution used the "trick" of making it fun. > But making it 'fun' doesn't answer the question of what the implicit goals are. Piaget's theories of assimilation can bring us closer to this, I am of the mind that they encompass at least part of the intellectual drive toward play and investigation. Jonathan El-Bizri ------------------------------------------- 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
