5 ms·
If we're talking AGI, here's my problem: [...] one also needs predicates or relations: things that have truth values, and order terms. Thus, ‘greater then
by Udo 12y ago
If we're talking AGI, here's my problem:
[...] one also needs predicates or relations: things that have
truth values, and order terms. Thus, ‘greater then’ is a relation,
and ‘a>b’ is either true or false. Relations can also be things like
IsA, HasA, BelongsTo, LivesIn, EmployedAt.
In a biological system, these predicates are encoded in the graph itself. This is important for two reasons. First, this dynamic predicate encoding contains by necessity a representation of what the predicate actually means. Second, this allows a graph relationship between predicates themselves, and thus it's possible to learn new ones, abstract higher-level ones, or modify existing predicates.
Why do I think this is a problem? It's clearly not relevant for AI tasks, but AGIs have to be general and self-organizing. Of course I do agree with the research consensus that we probably have to "cheat" by hardcoding certain things (brains do it too, afterall), but maybe tags for node relationships should not be predefined like that if you want a system that can reason freely.
The problem is of course one of practicality. If you want a system you can explicitly program from the outside, there has to be a set of predicates which both the programmer and the AI understand to mean the same thing. However, in doing so you're putting a severe limit on the amount of self-organization a brain can perform. Natural systems are not like that.
- XorNot 12y agoThe brain does not have unlimited self-organizational ability either though - it's why neurological development in the womb is so important, because if the proto-brain doesn't get initially structured just like, we don't wind up with something capable of general reasoning later in it's life. So I don't really think this is a problem - or I'd contend we don't know enough to say it definitely would be.
- Udo 12y agoI think I failed to get my point across, then. If you go back to my original comment, you'll find that priming the developing brain has in fact been addressed and that's not what I mean. I was referring to the concept of hard-coded relationship predicates which make the system easy to program from the outside, but which have the drawbacks I already talked about.
- ssdfsdf 12y agoI agree, the way that the system reasons should be configurable by the system itself. Of course you have to give it some fundamental operation(ultimately we operate within the mappings of the universe), but this should be as low level as possible, allowing the system to build its own composite structure with which to reason.
- joe_the_user 12y agoThe qualities of any finite system are finite so "unlimited" doesn't mean much here. At the same time, one thing that's notable about human intelligence is that, in comparison to source code, the learning and the skills gained in one context can be much very easily mobilized for use other contexts (see Winograd and Flores' use of Martin Heidegger's term "ready at hand" in their critique of AGI, etc). And yes, I'd love to put this claim in more exact but but that would only be possible if we'd solved the question of "what is intelligence". Yes, since the problem isn't solved, we can't prove that a lack of flexibility will doom any given system. But I'm still fine pointing out that my human intuition, honed by many years of evolution, says any general intelligence requires far greater flexibility than is evident in most humanly constructed logic systems.
- murbard2 12y agoIn addition, an AGI is likely to be homoiconic, representing its knowledge, its heuristics, its meta heuristics and meta meta heuristics in a flat (non hierarchical) manner.
- maaku 12y agoThat's not how the system described works. Relations can be instances of schema defined elsewhere in the hypergraph.