Well, I didn't write in this thread about Friendliness (apart from the last two sentences of the last message, which is a hypothetical so impossible I had no right to draw it, really). It is bad terminology to call evolution intelligence, it is a completely different optimization process even if it can eventually lead to intelligence. I didn't merely imply that "self-organization" is far from being a key to Friendliness (kind of obvious, this), but far from being a key to intelligence in general. If you are trying to create open-ended evolutionary process, it might be an important stepstone, but again for reasons different from aesthetic properties. At least with evolution, you have known regularities to start from.
Don't approach debate as a combat, don't fight the arguments. Improve on them, and help your opponent in destroying your own mistakes. On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 5:05 AM, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Vlad, > > At this point, we ought to acknowledge that we just have different > approaches. You're trying to hit a very small target accurately and > precisely. I'm not. It's not important to me the precise details of how a > self-organizing system would actually self-organize, what form that would > take or what goals would emerge for that system beyond > persistence/replication. We've already gone over the Friendliness debate so I > won't go any further with that here. > > My approach is to try and recreate the processes that led to the emergence of > life, and of intelligence. I see life and intelligence as strongly > interrelated, yet I don't see either as dependent on our particular > biological substrate. Life I define as a self-organizing process that does > work (expends energy) to maintain its self-organization (which is to say it > maintains a boundary between itself and the environment, in which the entropy > inside is lower than the entropy outside). Life at the simplest possible > level is therefore a kind of hard-coded intelligence. My hunch is that > anything sufficiently advanced to be considered generally intelligent needs > to be alive in the above sense. But suffice it to say, pursuit of AGI is not > in my short term plans. > > Just as an aside, because sometimes this feels combative, or overly > defensive: I have not come on to this list to try and persuade anyone to > adopt my approach, or to dissuade others from theirs. Rather, I came here to > gather feedback and criticism of my thoughts, to defend them when challenged, > and to change my mind when it seems like my current ideas are inadequate. And > of course, to provide the same kind of feedback for others when I have > something to contribute. In that spirit, I'm grateful for your feedback. I'm > also very curious to see the results of your approach, and those of others > here... I may be critical of what you're trying to do, but that doesn't mean > I think you shouldn't do it (in most cases anyway :-] ). > -- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
