Cool, this idea has already been applied successfully to some areas of AI, such as ant-colony algorithms and swarm intelligence algorithms. But I was thinking that it would be interesting to apply it at a high level. For example, consider that you create the best AGI agent you can come up with and, instead of running just one, you create several copies of it (perhaps with slight variations), and you initiate each in a different part of your reality or environment for such agents, after letting them have the ability to communicate. In this way whenever one such agents learns anything meaningful he passes the information to all other agents as well, that is, it not only modifies its own policy but it also affects the other's to some extent (determined by some constant or/and by how much the other agent likes this one, that is how useful learning from it has been in the past and so on). This way not only each agent would learn much faster, but also the agents could learn to use this communication ability to their advantage to ameliorate. I just think it would be interesting to implement this, not that I am capable of right now.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Bob Mottram <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/1/14 Valentina Poletti <[email protected]>: > > Anyways my point is, the reason why we have achieved so much technology, > so > > much knowledge in this time is precisely the "we", it's the union of > several > > individuals together with their ability to communicate with one-other > that > > has made us advance so much. In a sense we are a single being with > millions > > of eyes, ears, hands, brains, which alltogether can create amazing > things. > > But take any human being alone, isolate him/her from any contact with any > > other human being and rest assured he/she will not achieve a single > artifact > > of technology. In fact he/she might not survive long. > > > Yes. I think Ben made a similar point in The Hidden Pattern. People > studying human intelligence - psychologists, psychiatrists, cognitive > scientists, etc - tend to focus narrowly on the individual brain, but > human intelligence is more of an emergent networked phenomena > populated by strange meta-entities such as archetypes and memes. Even > the greatest individuals from the world of science or art didn't make > their achievements in a vacuum, and were influenced by earlier works. > > Years ago I was chatting with someone who was about to patent some > piece of machinery. He had his name on the patent, but was pointing > out that it's very difficult to be able to say exactly who made the > invention - who was the "guiding mind". In this case many individuals > within his company had some creative input, and there was really no > one "inventor" as such. I think many human-made artifacts are like > this. > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- A true friend stabs you in the front. - O. Wilde Einstein once thought he was wrong; then he discovered he was wrong. For every complex problem, there is an answer which is short, simple and wrong. - H.L. Mencken ------------------------------------------- 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=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
