On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'd write it in a separate language, developed for human programmers, >> but keep the language with which AI interacts minimalistic, to >> understand how it's supposed to grow, and not be burdened by technical >> details in the core algorithm or fooled by appearance of functionality >> where there is none but a simple combination of sufficiently >> expressive primitives. Open-ended learning should be open-ended from >> the start. It's a general argument of course, but you need specifics >> to fight it. > > Okay, I'll repeat the specific example from earlier; how would you > handle it following your strategy? > > Example: you want the AI to generate code to meet a spec, which you > provided in the form of a fitness function. If the problem isn't > trivial and you don't have a million years to spare, you want the AI > to read and understand the spec so it can produce code targeted to > meet it, rather than rely on random trial and error. >
I'd write this specification in language it understands, including a library that builds more convenient primitives from that foundation if necessary. -- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
