Tim Freeman writes: Let's take Novamente as an example. ... It cannot improve
itself until the following things happen: 1) It acquires the knowledge
and skills to become a competent programmer, a task that takes a human many
years of directed training and practical experience. 2) It is
Tim Freeman: No value is added by introducing considerations about
self-reference into conversations about the consequences of AI engineering.
Junior geeks do find it impressive, though.
The point of that conversation was to illustrate that if people are worried
about Seed AI exploding, then
Derek, Tim,
There is no oversight: self-improvement doesn't necessarily refer to
actual instance of self that is to be improved, but to AGI's design.
Next thing must be better than previous one for runaway progress to
happen, and one way of doing it is for next thing to be a refinement
of
Let's take Novamente as an example. ... It cannot improve itself
until the following things happen:
1) It acquires the knowledge and skills to become a competent
programmer, a task that takes a human many years of directed
training and practical experience.
Wrong. This was hashed to
From: Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You seem to think that self-reference buys you nothing at all since it
is a simple matter for the first AGI projects to reinvent their own
equivalent from scratch, but I'm not sure that's true.
The from scratch part is a straw-man argument. The AGI project will
Linas Vepstas: Let's take Novamente as an example. ... It cannot improve
itself until the following things happen:1) It acquires the
knowledge and skills to become a competent programmer, a task that takes a
human many years of directed training and practical experience. Wrong.
This
Tim Freeman wrote:
My point is that if one is worried about a self-improving Seed AI
exploding, one should also be worried about any AI that competently
writes software exploding.
There *is* a slight gap between competently writing software and
competently writing minds. Large by human
On 10/12/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
some of us are much impressed by it. Anyone with even a surface grasp
of the basic concept on a math level will realize that there's no
difference between self-modifying and writing an outside copy of
yourself, but *either one*
