Ben, To the extent it is not proprietary, could you please list some of the types of parameters that have to be tuned, and the types, if any, of Loosemore-type complexity problems you envision in Novamente or have experienced with WebMind, in such tuning and elsewhere?
Ed Porter -----Original Message----- From: Benjamin Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 1:09 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] None of you seem to be able ... > Conclusion: there is a danger that the complexity that even Ben agrees > must be present in AGI systems will have a significant impact on our > efforts to build them. But the only response to this danger at the > moment is the bare statement made by people like Ben that "I do not > think that the danger is significant". No reason given, no explicit > attack on any component of the argument I have given, only a statement > of intuition, even though I have argued that intuition cannot in > principle be a trustworthy guide here. But Richard, your argument ALSO depends on intuitions ... I'll try, though, to more concisely frame the reason I think your argument is wrong. I agree that AGI systems contain a lot of complexity in the dynamical- systems-theory sense. And I agree that tuning all the parameters of an AGI system externally is likely to be intractable, due to this complexity. However, part of the key to intelligence is **self-tuning**. I believe that if an AGI system is built the right way, it can effectively tune its own parameters, hence adaptively managing its own complexity. Now you may say there's a problem here: If AGI component A2 is to tune the parameters of AGI component A1, and A1 is complex, then A2 has got to also be complex ... and who's gonna tune its parameters? So the answer has got to be that: To effectively tune the parameters of an AGI component of complexity X, requires an AGI component of complexity a bit less than X. Then one can build a self-tuning AGI system, if one does the job right. Now, I'm not saying that Novamente (for instance) is explicitly built according to this architecture: it doesn't have N components wherein component A_N tunes the parameters of component A_(N+1). But in many ways, throughout the architecture, it relies on this sort of fundamental logic. Obviously it is not the case that every system of complexity X can be parameter-tuned by a system of complexity less than X. The question however is whether an AGI system can be built of such components. I suggest the answer is yes -- and furthermore suggest that this is pretty much the ONLY way to do it... Your intuition is that this is not possible, but you don't have a proof of this... And yes, I realize the above argument of mine is conceptual only -- I haven't given a formal definition of complexity. There are many, but that would lead into a mess of math that I don't have time to deal with right now, in the context of answering an email... -- Ben G ----- 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/?&; ----- 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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=73419475-92a308
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
