On 3/29/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll go you one better . . . . I truly believe that the minimal AGI core, sans KB content, is 0 lines of code . . . . Just like C compilers are written in C, the AGI should be entirely written in it's knowledge base (eventually) to the point that it can understand itself, rewrite itself, and recompile itself in it's entirety. The problem is bootstrapping to that point.
I have to disagree. The following is adapted from my chapter in the AGI collection (http://www.springer.com/west/home/generic/order?SGWID=4-40110-22-43950079-0): *. "Complete self-modifying" is an illusion. As Hofstadter put it, "below every tangled hierarchy lies an inviolate level" [in GEB]. If we allow a system to modify its meta-level knowledge, i.e., its inference rules and control strategy, we need to give it (fixed) meta-meta-level knowledge to specify how the modification happens. As flexible as the human mind is, it cannot modify its own "low of thought". *. Though high-level self-modifying will give the system more flexibility, it does not necessarily make the system more intelligent. Self-modifying at the meta-level is often dangerous, and it should be used only when the same effect cannot be produced in the object-level. To assume "the more radical the changes can be, the more intelligent the system will be" is unfounded. It is easy to allow a system to modify its own source code, but hard to do it right. Even if you write a C compiler in C, or a Prolog interpreter in Prolog (which is much easier), it cannot be used without something else that understand at least a subset of the language. Pei ----- 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
