Hi Vlad,
--- On Mon, 9/15/08, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We do design these systems. Even if there is no "top
> manager" of the
> design and production process, even if nobody holds the
> whole process
> in one mind, it is a result of application of optimization
> pressure of
> individual people. I don't see how ability to create
> economically
> driven processes fundamentally differs from complicated
> engineering
> projects like putting a man on the moon of a Boeing. People
> can
> organize processes more powerful than individual humans,
> and there are
> limitations to how far you can improve individual
> performance, where
> you can run things in parallel and iterate over accumulated
> results.
Hmm, I see it differently. In the case of a Boeing or man on the moon there is
a single goal that can be clearly articulated, from which all other subgoals
derive. In the case of the market, can you clearly articulate a super-goal? Not
really, because nobody actually has control of it. The design is emergent
because it serves many actors with competing goals, not a single actor or
organization that can control the market in accordance with its own goals.
> Applicability to designing intelligence is nontrivial (do
> you mean the
> process of designing an intelligence or the workings of
> designed
> intelligence?).
I mean the actual design of brains as selected by evolution - I'm suggesting
that, like a marketplace, our minds are comprised of large numbers of
independent "actors" that compete and cooperate, and the interaction of those
myriad pieces gives rise to a super-organization in roughly the same way that
the marketplace is a super-organization of myriad buyers and sellers.
> You can't
> create an intelligent process from using known economic
> processes on
> stupid agents
Really? What's the basis of that assertion?
> -- it might be a good direction to research
> what
> economy-like processes will result in powerful
> optimization, but it's
> not like currently known economic processes obviously lead
> to that
> (maybe they obviously don't to someone more familiar
> with the field).
I'm not actually saying that you can build an AI just by modeling an economy. I
am suggesting however that the self-organization inherent in our economy looks
to me like a rather obvious clue about how our brains/minds work.
> You can't take an algorithm currently fueled by
> intelligence (human
> economy), take intelligence out of it and hope that there
> will be
> enough traces of intelligence essence left to do the work
> regardless.
I think the point of the article I sent is that the market, in all its
complexity, is not conceivable by human intelligence except in terms of gross
simplifications. We cannot purposefully run the economy, we can only constrain
it (e.g., this is why communism failed). BTW, this goes to Valentina's story a
while back about control.
In other words, the intelligence of the market lies in its emergent aspect.
It's like a fire - you don't design it, you shape it... you create the
conditions for the flow to emerge. Is this not true of brains and minds?
Terren
-------------------------------------------
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=114414975-3c8e69
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
