This echoes my feelings too. There is one other thing too. After my last posting I realized that what I was talking about was general mathematics rather than AI or AGI. Of course Polaris is AI, very much so, but Von Neumann's nuclear war strategy was an evaluation of Minimax. Mind, once you have a mathematical formulation you can quite easily transfer this to AI.
One should always approach problems rationally. McNamara's dictum seems on the face of it to contradict the validity of Psychology as a science. Psychology, if is is a valid science can be used for modelling. Some of what McNamara has to say seems to me to be a little bit contradictory. On the one hand he espouses "*gut feeling*". On the other he says you should be prepared to change your mind. *Probieren geht über studieren* the Vietnam war was lost.. John Prescott at the Chilcot Iraq inquiry said that the test of politicians was not hindsight, but courage and leadership. What the .... does he mean. If an AGI system had taken such wrong decisions the programmers would be sued massively. It seems that "*getting things right*" is not a priority for politicians. Your Angela Merkel is the only scientist in high political office. The only other person who springs to mind is Bashir Assad of Syria who was an eye surgeon at Moorfield's Hospital. This is perhaps a theme that can be developed. I have already posted to the effect that AGI will spring from the Internet and that there will be one AGI governing, or at any rate advising world leaders. For reasons I have already gone into a "black box" AGI is not a possibility. War will thus end. In fact war between developed countries has already effectively ended. It has *not* ended terrorism or free enterprise war. However if psychology is valid there are routes we could follow. - Ian Parker On 31 July 2010 00:47, Jan Klauck <[email protected]> wrote: > Ian Parker wrote > > > games theory > > It produced many studies, many strategies, but they weren't used that > much in the daily business. It's used more as a general guide. > And in times of crisis they preferred to rely on gut feelings. E.g., > see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War > > > How do you cut > > Jerusalem? Israel cuts and the Arabs then decide on the piece they want. > > That is the simplest model. > > "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, > and wrong." (H. L. Mencken) > > SCNR. :) > > > This brings me to where I came in. How do you deal with irrational > > decision > > making. I was hoping that social simulation would be seeking to provide > > answers. This does not seem to be the case. > > Models of limited rationality (like bounded rationality) are already > used, e.g., in resource mangement & land use studies, peace and conflict > studies and some more. > The problem with those models is to say _how_much_ irrationality there > is. We can assume (and model) perfect rationality and then measure the > gap. Empirically most actors aren't fully irrational or behave random, > so they approach the rational assumptions. What's often more missing is > that actors lack information or the means to utilize them. > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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
