4 ms·
At first glance, the obvious solution seems to be to create intelligence the same way nature did: some sort of evolution. Some sort of algorithm where multiple
by bryananderson 9y ago
At first glance, the obvious solution seems to be to create intelligence the same way nature did: some sort of evolution. Some sort of algorithm where multiple "networks" mutate and reproduce in some way, in response to some fitness function. Mutations that make a network more fit result in an increased reproductive rate, while other mutations decrease that rate.
Evolutionary algorithms have been around for a while but haven't really taken off. Maybe the problem is that you can't get from zero to intelligence with a single fitness function.
Think about it: the "fitness function" for our single-called ancestors was not how well they could thrive in a post-industrial service economy. Nor was it how well they could thrive as hunter-gatherers in the African Savannah. It was a very, very different fitness function.
To get from zero to humans, nature had to evolve single-called organisms, then mitochondria, then basic multi-celled organisms, then animals that lived in the ocean, then amphibious ones, then land-dwelling ones, then mammals, then apes, then early humans, then modern humans.
By the way, I left out the overwhelming majority of the steps.
At each step, the evolutionary pressures on these organisms were wildly different. Each set of pressures was necessary in order for the next layer of complexity to evolve.
I think that if we want to evolve an intelligent entity, we would probably have to do it like this.
- goatlover 9y agoBut nature also evolved a bunch of other organisms alongside humans that are fit in their own way. How do you evolve for just the (human level) intelligent entity and not a cockroach or rat? Point is that you're going to end up with a massive ecosystem of organisms if you could fully simulate an evolutionary history. It's not even clear that human level intelligence would evolve. It's only happened once in our planet's history. We might be flukes. You might have to run the massive simulation a thousand times and somehow be able to pinpoint the human-level intelligence when it does succeed.
- bryananderson 9y agoExcellent points! One would have to figure out which evolutionary pressures to apply in order to select for the desired traits. For example, at some point in the past, humans and rats had a common ancestor. That ancestor had two offspring. One offspring's descendants faced a series of evolutionary pressures that led to rats. The other's descendants faced a different series of pressures, leading to humans. The designer of a multi-stage evolutionary algorithm could choose which evolutionary pressures to apply, and when to apply them. The designer could thus shape the evolution of the program in the desired direction. The trick is knowing what pressures to apply in order to get the desired results. How could one do that? I have no idea! But if someone can figure it out, perhaps they could mimic what nature has blindly done. EDIT: As for the worry of ending up with a menagerie of programs, there are a couple of things that I think could help. First, the designer must be careful not to take the natural-selection analogy too far. The real world has numerous diverse environments, each with myriad niches; and in each niche, different evolutionary pressures shape organisms. This sort of algorithm need not provide all these diverse niches. It could apply a single set of pressures to all the programs in it, pushing them either in the desired direction or to extinction. Second, if the designer could identify evolutionary states that are a "dead end" and unlikely to evolve in the desired direction, they could remove the dead-end programs. Whether such dead-end states can be reliably identified is anyone's guess.
- goatlover 9y agoSounds like the making of a really interesting game, at the very least.
- ezioamf 9y agoHow to create intelligent systems are already encoded in human DNA. You just have to find a way to decode it
- tehramz 9y agoWhat makes you think that our brains or intelligence is the most efficient or most effective? We happened to evolved a brain that allowed us to think on what we consider sophisticated. This doesn't mean that it's a great system. We also evolved to have a spine, which is a terrible design. There's a ton of other examples of evolution designing things that are terrible and ineffective, but get the job done. Is that what we're striving for?
- uoaei 9y agoWhy pooh-pooh ideas if you're not sure either? Let's explore, combine, and mutate the iterations that each party thinks may be successful.
- bryananderson 9y agoYou're entirely right, of course! Evolution certainly does not create anything optimal. My point is that perhaps we understand evolution better than we understand how to create a mind from scratch.