--- On Wed, 10/15/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your paper does **not** prove anything whatsoever about real-world > situations.
You are correct. My RSI paper only applies to self improvement of closed systems. In the interest of proving the safety of AI, I think this is a good thing. It proves that various scenarios where an AI rewrites its source code or makes random changes and tests them, will not work without external input, even if computing power is unlimited. This removes one possible threat of a fast takeoff singularity. Also, you are right that it does not apply to many real world problems. Here my objection (as stated in my AGI proposal, but perhaps not clearly) is that creating an artificial scientist with slightly above human intelligence won't launch a singularity either, but for a different reason. It is not the scientist who creates a smarter scientist, but it is the whole global economy that creates it. George Will expresses the idea better than I do in http://www.newsweek.com/id/158752 Nobody can make a pencil, much less an AI. The global brain *is* self improving, both by learning and by reorganizing itself to be more efficient. Without input, the self organization would reach a maximum and stop. Growth requires input as well as increased computing power by adding people and computers. As for using algorithmic complexity as a proxy for intelligence (an upper bound, actually), perhaps you can suggest an alternative. Algorithmic complexity is "how much we know". Less well-defined measures seem to break down into philosophical arguments over exactly what intelligence is. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- 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
