5 ms·
Plot twist: figuring out that objective function may prove as intractable as the original problem! We'll need an objective function writing objective function,
by CuriouslyC 9y ago
Plot twist: figuring out that objective function may prove as intractable as the original problem! We'll need an objective function writing objective function, and then it's turtles all the way down.
- bad_alloc 9y agoUnless it were possible for each objective function to converge to a next one that slightly extends the current one. However, what would the starting point be? Is this mathematically definable? What does the (im)possibility to define such a function tell us about AI?
- p1esk 9y agoMake them hierarchical. Starting point is to survive.
- visarga 9y ago> However, what would the starting point be? The starting place is simulation. We use games (and other kinds of sims) to learn to act intelligently in a virtual environment. In such a place we can define many tasks and a learning curriculum.
- mannigfaltig 9y agoThe main objective function in nature is very simple though: maximize the number of copies of your genes. Such an objective enforced in a resource-constrained multi-agent world (as suggested in the slides) could really lead to quite complex sub-objectives which may as well lead to general intelligence. For example, if each agent can process information and perform work, it follows that individuals that have better cooperative abilities also have a larger reproductive success. Cooperation is, however, extremely complex: It requires communication, identification of other individuals, establishment of trust, early detection of betrayal etc. The necessity for modeling the actions of other agents alone provides plenty of correction signals toward general intelligence because modelling other agents is such a difficult task.
- CuriouslyC 9y agoI don't know that "maximize descendants of self" is necessarily right though. It seems like a better statement might be "maximize the development of complexity in the universe". Just as an example, lots of people choose to forgo having children to focus on contributing to the universe in other ways (myself included). This isn't just a self-centered drive for fame/wealth/etc either, as many people pursue their quests in poverty/obscurity, and some even choose anonymity.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mirimir 9y agoWell, for biological organisms, it's all about reproductive success. I mean, what exits today reflects what managed to reproduce, and how well. Overall, that has created lots of complexity. But that's just because there are so many niches and ways to be successful in them. What you say about people reflects cooperative behavior that drives reproductive success for shared gene complexes.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y agoIt took nature four billion years to invent humans, who are actually - if we're honest - pretty terrible as an example of workable AGI. In fact what nature invented was a persistent colony organism with external memory. Wild solo humans are only a little smarter than wolves individually, but being able to share and externalise invention and learning created a massive advantage. Humans are successful because although only a tiny minority of individuals are any good at invention, the fact that information persists and is shared means the entire population benefits. The problem for AI is modelling the learning and invention process. Classifiers and recognisers are getting better, but they're not really learning in the human sense, which is a combination of abstraction, mimicry, and occasional invention. IMO there's no chance of AGI developing until there's a persistent, transferable, abstracted model generated as an output from classifier systems and other learning machines which is a symbolic - not just a statistical - summary of the learning.