About play... I would argue that it emerges in any sufficiently generally-intelligent system that is faced with goals that are difficult for it ... as a consequence of other general cognitive processes...
If an intelligent system has a goal G which is time-consuming or difficult to achieve ... it may then synthesize another goal G1 which is easier to achieve We then have the uncertain syllogism Achieving G implies reward G1 is similar to G |- Achieving G1 implies reward As links between goal-achievement and reward are to some extent modified by uncertain inference (or analogous process, implemented e.g. in neural nets), we thus have the emergence of "play" ... in cases where G1 is much easier to achieve than G ... Of course, if working toward G1 is actually good practice for working toward G, this may give the intelligent system (if it's smart and mature enough to strategize) or evolution impetus to create additional bias toward the pursuit of G1 In this view, play is a quite general structural phenomenon ... and the play that human kids do with blocks and sticks and so forth is a special case, oriented toward ultimate goals G involving physical manipulation And the knack in gaining anything from play is in appropriate similarity-assessment ... i.e. in measuring similarity between G and G1 in such a way that achieving G1 actually teaches things useful for achieving G So for any goal-achieving system that has long-term goals which it can't currently effectively work directly toward, play may be an effective strategy... In this view, we don't really need to design an AI system with play in mind. Rather, if it can explicitly or implicitly carry out the above inference, concept-creation and subgoaling processes, play should emerge from its interaction w/ the world... ben g On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:20 AM, David Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/26/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Is anyone trying to design a self-exploring robot or computer? Does this >> principle have a name? > > > Interestingly, some views on AI advocate specifically prohibiting > self-awareness and self-exploration as a precaution against the development > of unfriendly AI. In my opinion, these views erroneously transfer familiar > human motives onto 'alien' AGI cognitive architectures - there's a history > of discussing this topic on SL4 and other places. > > I believe however that most approaches to designing AGI (those that do not > specifically prohibit self-aware and self-explortative behaviors) take for > granted, and indeed intentionally promote, self-awareness and > self-exploration at most stages of AGI development. In other words, > efficient and effective recursive self-improvement (RSI) requires > self-awareness and self-exploration. If any term exists to describe a > 'self-exploring robot or computer', that term is RSI. Coining a lesser term > for 'self-exploring AI' may be useful in some proto-AGI contexts, but I > suspect that 'RSI' is ultimately a more useful and meaningful term. > > -dave > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- 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
