> Now about building a rational vs non-rational AGI, how would you go about
> modeling a non-rational part of it? Short of a random number generator?
Why would you want to build a non-rational AGI? It seems like a *really* bad
idea. I think I'm missing your point here.
> For the most part we Do want a rational AGI, and it DOES need to explain
> itself. One fo the first tasks of AGI will be to replace all of the current
> expert systems in fields like medicine.
Yep. That's my argument and you expand it well.
> Now for some tasks it will not be able to do this, or not within a small
> amount of data and explanations. The level that it is able to generalize
> this information will reflect its usefullness and possibly intelligence.
Yep. You're saying exactly what I'm thinking.
> For many decisions I believe a small feature set is required, with the
> larger possible features being so lowly weighted as to not have much impact.
This is where Ben and I are sort of having a debate. I agree with him that the
brain may well be using the larger number since it is massively parallel and it
therefore can. I think that we differ on whether or not the larger is required
for AGI (Me = No, Ben = Yes) -- which reminds me . . .
Hey Ben, if the larger number IS required for AGI, how do you intend to do this
in a computationally feasible way in a non-massively-parallel system?
----- Original Message -----
From: James Ratcliff
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [agi] A question on the symbol-system hypothesis
BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/4/06, Mark Waser wrote:
>
> Explaining our actions is the reflective part of our minds evaluating the
> reflexive part of our mind. The reflexive part of our minds, though,
> operates analogously to a machine running on compiled code with the
> compilation of code being largely *not* under the control of our conscious
> mind (though some degree of this *can* be changed by our conscious minds).
> The more we can correctly interpret and affect/program the reflexive part
of
> our mind with the reflective part, the more intelligent we are. And,
> translating this back to the machine realm circles back to my initial
point,
> the better the machine can explain it's reasoning and use it's explanation
> to improve it's future actions, the more intelligent the machine is (or,
in
> reverse, no explanation = no intelligence).
>
Your reasoning is getting surreal.
As Ben tried to explain to you, 'explaining our actions' is our
consciousness dreaming up excuses for what we want to do anyway. Are
you saying that the more excuses we can think up, the more intelligent
we are? (Actually there might be something in that!).
You seem to have a real difficulty in admitting that humans behave
irrationally for a lot (most?) of the time. Don't you read newspapers?
You can redefine rationality if you like to say that all the crazy
people are behaving rationally within their limited scope, but what's
the point? Just admit their behaviour is not rational.
Every time someone (subconsciously) decides to do something, their
brain presents a list of reasons to go ahead. The reasons against are
ignored, or weighted down to be less preferred. This applies to
everything from deciding to get a new job to deciding to sleep with
your best friend's wife. Sometimes a case arises when you really,
really want to do something that you *know* is going to end in
disaster, ruined lives, ruined career, etc. and it is impossible to
think of good reasons to proceed. But you still go ahead anyway,
saying that maybe it won't be so bad, maybe nobody will find out, it's
not all my fault anyway, and so on.....
Human decisions and activities are mostly emotional and irrational.
That's the way life is. Because life is uncertain and unpredictable,
human decisions are based on best guesses, gambles and basic
subconscious desires.
An AGI will have to cope with this mess. Basing an AGI on iron logic
and 'rationality' alone will lead to what we call 'inhuman'
ruthlessness.
BillK
You just rationlized the reasons for human choice in your above arguement
yourself :}
MOST humans act rationaly MOST of the time. They may not make 'good'
decisions, but they are rational ones, if you decides to sleep with your best
friends wife, you do so because you are attracted and you want her, and you
rationlize you will probably not get caught. You have stated the reasons, and
you move ahead with that plan.
Vague stuff you cant rationalize easily is why you like the appearance of
someones face, or why you like this flavor of ice cream. Those are hard to
rationalize, but much of our behaviour is easier.
Now about building a rational vs non-rational AGI, how would you go about
modeling a non-rational part of it? Short of a random number generator?
For the most part we Do want a rational AGI, and it DOES need to explain
itself. One fo the first tasks of AGI will be to replace all of the current
expert systems in fields like medicine.
For these it is not merely good enough to say, (as a Doctor AGI) I think he
has this cancer, and you should treat him with this strange procedure. There
must be an accounting that it can present to other doctors and say, yes, I
noticed a coorelation between these factors that lead me to believe this, with
this certainty. An early AI must also proove its merit by explaining what it
is doing to build up a level of trust.
Further, it is important in another fashion, in that we can turn around
and use these smart AI's to further train other Doctors or specialists with the
AGI's explainations.
Now for some tasks it will not be able to do this, or not within a small
amount of data and explanations. The level that it is able to generalize this
information will reflect its usefullness and possibly intelligence.
In the Halo expirement for the Chemistry API, they were graded not only on
correct answers but also in their explanations of how they got to those answers.
Some of the explanations were short concise and well reasoned, some fo them
though, went down to a very basic level of detail and lasted for a couple of
pages.
If you are flying to Austin, and asking a AGI to plan your route, and it
chooses a Airline that sounds dodgy that you have never heard of, mainly
because it was cheap or some other reasoning, you def want to know why it
choose that, and tell it not to weight that feature as highly.
For many decisions I believe a small feature set is required, with the
larger possible features being so lowly weighted as to not have much impact.
James Ratcliff
_______________________________________
James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com
New Torrent Site, Has TV and Movie Downloads!
http://www.falazar.com/projects/Torrents/tvtorrents_show.php
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real
people who know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----
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
