Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is how I see this exchange...
You proposed a so-called *mathematical* "debunking" of RSI.
I presented some detailed arguments against this so-called debunking,
pointing out that its mathematical assumptions and its quantification of
improvement bear little relevance to real-world AI now or in the future.
I can only disprove a mathematical argument. I think I have disproved RSI based
on a model of self introspection without input. If you want to allow input,
then you need to make a clear distinction between self improvement and learning.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems clear that without external inputs the amount of improvement
possible is stringently limited. That is evident from inspection. But
why the "without input"? The only evident reason is to ensure the truth
of the proposition, as it doesn't match any intended real-world scenario
that I can imagine. (I've never considered the "Oracle AI" scenario [an
AI kept within a black box that will answer all your questions without
inputs] to be plausible.)
-------------------------------------------
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=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
