Ian Parker wrote >> Then define your political objectives. No holes, no ambiguity, no >> forgotten cases. Or does the AGI ask for our feedback during mission? >> If yes, down to what detail? > > With Matt's ideas it does exactly that.
Well, no it doesn't. My proposed AGI facilitates communication between people by storing and publishing your communication, authenticating it, indexing it, organizing it, rating it, providing redundant backup, making it searchable, and routing it to anyone who cares. The G in AGI comes from having access to lots of narrow AI specialists built using existing technology. The specialists come from the economic incentive to provide quality information in return for attention and reputation. If you define winning a war as achieving your political objectives, then it is clear that Al Qaida has defeated the U.S. But my AGI is not going to fight your war for you. I think it will prevent wars because it will make it hard to keep secrets and it will give you better alternatives to solving your problems than killing people. -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ----- Original Message ---- From: Jan Klauck <[email protected]> To: agi <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, July 30, 2010 7:25:06 PM Subject: Re: [agi] AGI & Alife Ian Parker wrote >> Then define your political objectives. No holes, no ambiguity, no >> forgotten cases. Or does the AGI ask for our feedback during mission? >> If yes, down to what detail? > > With Matt's ideas it does exactly that. How does it know when to ask? You give it rules, but those rules can be somehow imperfect. How are its actions monitored and sanctioned? And hopefully it's clear that we are now far from mathematical proof. > No we simply add to the axiom pool. Adding is simple, proving is not. Especially when the rules, goals, and constraints are not arithmetic but ontological and normative statements. Wether by NL or formal system, it's error-prone to specify our knowledge of the world (much of it is implicit) and teach it to the AGI. It's similar to law which is similar to math with referenced axioms and definitions and a substitution process. You often find flaws--most are harmless, some are not. Proofs give us islands of certainty in an explored sea within the ocean of the possible. We end up with heuristics. That's what this discussion is about, when I remember right. :) cu Jan ------------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------------------- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
