Dave Hart: MT:Sorry, I forgot to ask for what I most wanted to know - what
form of RSI in any specific areas has been considered?
To quote Charles Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
The best we can hope for is
About recursive self-improvement ... yes, I have thought a lot about it, but
don't have time to write a huge discourse on it here
One point is that if you have a system with N interconnected modules, you
can approach RSI by having the system separately think about how to improve
each module.
Hi Terren,
Obviously you need to complicated your original statement I believe that
ethics is *entirely* driven by what is best evolutionarily... in such a
way that we don't derive ethics from parasites.
Saying that ethics is entirely driven by evolution is NOT the same as saying
that
--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Jiri Jelinek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see why an un-embodied system couldn't
successfully use the
concept of self in its models. It's just another
concept, except that
it's linked to real features of the system.
To an unembodied agent, the concept of self is
--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Saying that ethics is entirely driven by evolution is NOT
the same as saying
that evolution always results in ethics. Ethics is
computationally/cognitively expensive to successfully
implement (because a
stupid implementation gets
A succesful AGI should have n methods of data-mining its experience
for knowledge, I think. If it should have n ways of generating those
methods or n sets of ways to generate ways of generating those methods
etc I don't know.
On 8/28/08, j.k. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/28/2008 04:47 PM, Matt
OK. How about this . . . . Ethics is that behavior that,
when shown by you,
makes me believe that I should facilitate your survival.
Obviously, it is
then to your (evolutionary) benefit to behave ethically.
Ethics can't be explained simply by examining interactions between
individuals. It's
I remember Richard Dawkins saying that group selection is a lie. Maybe
we shoud look past it now? It seems like a problem.
On 8/29/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. How about this . . . . Ethics is that behavior that,
when shown by you,
makes me believe that I should facilitate your
I like that argument.
Also, it is clear that humans can invent better algorithms to do
specialized things. Even if an AGI couldn't think up better versions
of itself, it would be able to do the equivalent of equipping itself
with fancy calculators.
--Abram
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:04 PM, j.k.
Group selection (as used as the term of art in evolutionary biology) does
not seem to be experimentally supported (and there have been a lot of recent
experiments looking for such an effect).
It would be nice if people could let the idea drop unless there is actually
some proof for it other
Dawkins tends to see an truth, and then overstate it. What he says
isn't usually exactly wrong, so much as one-sided. This may be an
exception.
Some meanings of group selection don't appear to map onto reality.
Others map very weakly. Some have reasonable explanatory power. If you
don't
Group selection is not dead, just weaker than individual selection. Altruism in
many species is evidence for its existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection
In any case, evolution of culture and ethics in humans is primarily memetic,
not genetic. Taboos against nudity are nearly
On 08/29/2008 10:09 AM, Abram Demski wrote:
I like that argument.
Also, it is clear that humans can invent better algorithms to do
specialized things. Even if an AGI couldn't think up better versions
of itself, it would be able to do the equivalent of equipping itself
with fancy calculators.
Advances in Frame Semantics:
Corpus and Computational Approaches and Insights
Theme Session to be held at ICLC 11, Berkeley, CA
Date: July 28 - August 3, 2009
Organizer: Miriam R. L. Petruck
Theme Session Description:
Fillmore (1975) introduced the notion of a frame into linguistics over
2008/8/29 j.k. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 08/28/2008 04:47 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
The premise is that if humans can create agents with above human
intelligence, then so can they. What I am questioning is whether agents at
any intelligence level can do this. I don't believe that agents at any
It seems that the debate over recursive self improvement depends on what you
mean by improvement. If you define improvement as intelligence as defined by
the Turing test, then RSI is not possible because the Turing test does not test
for superhuman intelligence. If you mean improvement as more
The special rate at the Crowne Plaza does not
apply to the night of Monday, 9 March. If the
post-conference workshops on Monday extend
into the afternoon, it would be useful if the
special rate was available on Monday night.
Thanks,
Bill
---
agi
On 08/29/2008 01:29 PM, William Pearson wrote:
2008/8/29 j.k.[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
An AGI with an intelligence the equivalent of a 99.-percentile human
might be creatable, recognizable and testable by a human (or group of
humans) of comparable intelligence. That same AGI at some later
Hi Bill,
Bruce Klein is the one dealing with this aspect of AGI-09, so I've cc'd this
message to him
To get a special rate we need to reserve a block of rooms in advance. So
we'd need to estimate in advance the number of rooms needed for Monday
night, which will be many fewer than needed for
Terren,
to the unembodied agent, it is not a concept at all, but merely a symbol with
no semantic context attached
It's an issue when trying to learn from NL only, but you can injects
semantics (critical for grounding) when teaching through a
formal_language[-based interface], get the thinking
2008/8/29 j.k. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 08/29/2008 01:29 PM, William Pearson wrote:
2008/8/29 j.k.[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
An AGI with an intelligence the equivalent of a 99.-percentile human
might be creatable, recognizable and testable by a human (or group of
humans) of comparable
Ben,
It looks like what you've thought about is aspects of the information
processing side of RSI but not the knowledge side. IOW you have thought about
the technical side but not abouthow you progress from one domain of knowledge
about the world to another, or from one subdomain to another.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Ben,
It looks like what you've thought about is aspects of the information
processing side of RSI but not the knowledge side. IOW you have thought
about the technical side but not abouthow you progress from one domain of
Mike Tintner wrote:
You may have noticed that AGI-ers are staggeringly resistant to learning new
domains.
Remember you are dealing with human brains. You can only write into long term
memory at a rate of 2 bits per second. :-)
AGI spans just about every field of science, from ethics to
On 08/29/2008 03:14 PM, William Pearson wrote:
2008/8/29 j.k.[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
... The human-level AGI running a million
times faster could simultaneously interact with tens of thousands of
scientists at their pace, so there is no reason to believe it need be
starved for interaction to the
Matt: AGI spans just about every field of science, from ethics to quantum
mechanics, child development to algorithmic information theory, genetics to
economics.
Just so. And every field of the arts. And history. And philosophy. And
technology. Including social technology. And organizational
26 matches
Mail list logo
