Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread Kaj Sotala
On 9/29/07, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/29/07, Kaj Sotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd be curious to see these, and I suspect many others would, too. (Even though they're probably from lists I am on, I haven't followed them nearly as actively as I could've.)

Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread Russell Wallace
On 9/30/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know, I'm struggling here to find a good reason to disagree with you, Russell. Strange position to be in, but it had to happen eventually ;-). And when Richard Loosemore and Russell Wallace agreed with each other, it was also a

Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread Kaj Sotala
On 9/30/07, Don Detrich - PoolDraw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, let's look at this from a technical point of view. AGI has the potential of becoming a very powerful technology and misused or out of control could possibly be dangerous. However, at this point we have little idea of how these

Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread William Pearson
On 29/09/2007, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Although it indeed seems off-topic for this list, calling it a religion is ungrounded and in this case insulting, unless you have specific arguments. Killing huge amounts of people is a pretty much possible venture for regular humans, so

RE: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread Derek Zahn
I suppose I'd like to see the list management weigh in on whether this type of talk belongs on this particular list or whether it is more appropriate for the singularity list. Assuming it's okay for now, especially if such talk has a technical focus: One thing that could improve safety is to

RE: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread Don Detrich
First, let me say I think this is an interesting and healthy discussion and has enough technical ramifications to qualify for inclusion on this list. Second, let me clarify that I am not proposing that the dangers of AGI be swiped under the rug or that we should be misleading the public. I

Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread Jef Allbright
On 9/30/07, Kaj Sotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Eliezer: ... Evolutionary programming (EP) is stochastic, and does not precisely preserve the optimization target in the generated code; EP gives you code that does what you ask, most of the time, under the tested circumstances, but the

RE: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread Edward W. Porter
Kaj, Another solid post. I think you, Don Detrich, and many others on this list believe that, for at least a couple of years, it's still pretty safe to go full speed ahead on AGI research and development. It appears from the below post that both you and Don agree AGI can potentially present

Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread BillK
On 9/30/07, Edward W. Porter wrote: I think you, Don Detrich, and many others on this list believe that, for at least a couple of years, it's still pretty safe to go full speed ahead on AGI research and development. It appears from the below post that both you and Don agree AGI can

Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread Morris F. Johnson
When presenting reasons for developing IGI to the general public one should refer to a list of problems that are generally insoluble with current computational technology. Global weather modelling and technology to predict very long term effects of energy expended to modify climate so that a

[agi] What is the complexity of RSI?

2007-09-30 Thread Matt Mahoney
What would be the simplest system capable of recursive self improvement, not necessarily with human level intelligence? What are the time and memory costs? What would be its algorithmic complexity? One could imagine environments that simplify the problem, e.g. Core Wars as a competitive

Re: [agi] What is the complexity of RSI?

2007-09-30 Thread J Storrs Hall, PhD
The simple intuition from evolution in the wild doesn't apply here, though. If I'm a creature in most of life's history with a superior mutation, the fact that there are lots of others of my kind with inferior ones doesn't hurt me -- in fact it helps, since they make worse competitors. But on

Re: [agi] What is the complexity of RSI?

2007-09-30 Thread Russell Wallace
On 9/30/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would be the simplest system capable of recursive self improvement, not necessarily with human level intelligence? What are the time and memory costs? What would be its algorithmic complexity? Depends on what metric you use to judge

RE: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread Edward W. Porter
Don, I think we agree on the basic issues. The difference is one of emphasis. Because I believe AGI can be so very powerful -- starting in a perhaps only five years if the right people got serious funding -- I place much more emphasis on trying to stay way ahead of the curve with regard to

Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread Richard Loosemore
Derek Zahn wrote: [snip] Surely certain AGI efforts are more dangerous than others, and the opaqueness that Yudkowski writes about is, at this point, not the primary danger. However, in that context, I think that Novamente is, to an extent, opaque in the sense that its actions may not be

RE: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread Derek Zahn
Richard Loosemore writes: It is much less opaque. I have argued that this is the ONLY way that I know of to ensure that AGI is done in a way that allows safety/friendliness to be guaranteed. I will have more to say about that tomorrow, when I hope to make an announcement. Cool. I'm sure

Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread Richard Loosemore
Derek Zahn wrote: Richard Loosemore writes: It is much less opaque. I have argued that this is the ONLY way that I know of to ensure that AGI is done in a way that allows safety/friendliness to be guaranteed. I will have more to say about that tomorrow, when I hope to make an

RE: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread Matt Mahoney
--- Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To Derek Zahn You're 9/30/2007 10:58 AM post is very interesting. It is the type of discussion of this subject -- potential dangers of AGI and how and when do we deal with them -- that is probably most valuable. In response I have the

Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content

2007-09-30 Thread Matt Mahoney
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Derek Zahn wrote: Richard Loosemore writes: It is much less opaque. I have argued that this is the ONLY way that I know of to ensure that AGI is done in a way that allows safety/friendliness to be guaranteed. I will

Re: [agi] What is the complexity of RSI?

2007-09-30 Thread Matt Mahoney
--- J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The simple intuition from evolution in the wild doesn't apply here, though. If I'm a creature in most of life's history with a superior mutation, the fact that there are lots of others of my kind with inferior ones doesn't hurt me -- in