On 11/14/06, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even now, with a relatively primitive system like the current > Novamente, it is not pragmatically possible to understand why the > system does each thing it does.Pragmatically possible obscures the point I was trying to make with Matt. If you were to freeze-frame Novamente right after it took an action, it would be trivially easy to understand why it took that action. > because > sometimes judgments are made via the combination of a large number of > weak pieces of evidence, and evaluating all of them would take too > much time.... Looks like a time problem to me . . . . NOT an incomprehensibility problem.
This argument started because Matt said that the wrong way to design an AI is to try to make it human-readable, and constantly look inside and figure out what it is doing; and the right way is to use math and statistics and learning. A human doesn't have enough time to look through millions of pieces of data, and doesn't have enough memory to retain them all in memory, and certainly doesn't have the time or the memory to examine all of the 10^(insert large number here) different relationships between these pieces of data. Hence, a human shouldn't design AI systems in a way that would require a human to have these abilities. The question is all about pragmatics. If you dismiss pragmatics, you are not part of this conversation. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
