AI researchers have been using *genetic algorithms* and *artificial life* to "evolve" AI programs since the 1970s.
@philipthrift On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 3:28:59 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Hi, > > Is it not how evolution is working ? By iteration and random modification, > new better organisms come to existence ? > > Why AI could not use iterating evolution to make better and better AI ? > > Also if *we build* a real AGI, isn't it the same thing ? Wouldn't we have > built a better, smarter version of us ? The AI surely would be able to > build another one and by iterating, a better one. > > What's wrong with this ? > > Quentin > > Le ven. 12 juil. 2019 à 06:28, Terren Suydam <[email protected] > <javascript:>> a écrit : > >> Sure, but that's not the "FOOM" scenario, in which an AI modifies its own >> source code, gets smarter, and with the increase in intelligence, is able >> to make yet more modifications to its own source code, and so on, until its >> intelligence far outstrips its previous capabilities before the recursive >> self-improvement began. It's hypothesized that such a process could take an >> astonishingly short amount of time, thus "FOOM". See >> https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/AI_takeoff#Hard_takeoff for more. >> >> My point was that the inherent limitation of a mind to understand itself >> completely, makes the FOOM scenario less likely. An AI would be forced to >> model its own cognitive apparatus in a necessarily incomplete way. It might >> still be possible to improve itself using these incomplete models, but >> there would always be some uncertainty. >> >> Another more minor objection is that the FOOM scenario also selects for >> AIs that become massively competent at self-improvement, but it's not clear >> whether this selected-for intelligence is merely a narrow competence, or >> translates generally to other domains of interest. >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 2:56 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> >>> Advances in intelligence can just be gaining more factual knowledge, >>> knowing more mathematics, using faster algorithms, etc. None of that is >>> barred by not being able to model oneself. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> On 7/11/2019 11:41 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: >>> > Similarly, one can never completely understand one's own mind, for it >>> > would take a bigger mind than one has to do so. This, I believe, is >>> > the best argument against the runaway-intelligence scenarios in which >>> > sufficiently advanced AIs recursively improve their own code to >>> > achieve ever increasing advances in intelligence. >>> > >>> > Terren >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/58fcc534-b708-4ded-a8da-75c3e9d923ff%40googlegroups.com.
