On 28/02/2008, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 2/28/08, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm going to try and elucidate my approach to building an intelligent > > system, in a round about fashion. This is the problem I am trying to > > solve. > > > > Imagine you are designing a computer system to solve an unknown > > problem, and you have these constraints > > > > A) Limited space to put general information about the world > > B) Communication with the system after it has been deployed. The less > > the better. > > C) We shall also assume limited processing ability etc > > > > The goal is to create a system that can solve the tasks as quickly as > > possible with the least interference from the outside. > > > > I'd like people to write a brief sketch of your solution to this sort > > of problem down. Is it different from your AGI designs, if so why? > > > Space/time-optimality is not my top concern. I'm focused on building an AGI > that *works*, within reasonable space/time. If you add these contraints, > you're > making the AGI problem harder than it already is. Ditto for the > amount of user > interaction. Why make it harder?
I'm not looking for optimality, just that better is important. I don't want to have to hold the hand of my system teaching it laboriously, so the less information I have to feed it the better. Why ignore the problem and make the job of teaching it harder? Also we have limited space and time in the real world > > System Sketch? -> It would have to be generally programmable, I would > > want to be able to send it arbitrary programs after it had been > > created, so I could send it a program to decrypt things or control > > things. It would also need to able to generate it's own programming > > and select between the different programs in order to minimise my need > > to program it. It is not different to my AGI design, unsurprisingly. > > > Generally programmable, yes. But that's very broad. Many systems have this > property. Note I want something different than computational universality. E.g. Von Neumann architectures are generally programmable, Harvard architectures aren't. As they can't be reprogrammed at run time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_architecture > Even system with only a declarative KB can re-program itself by modifying the > KB. So a program could get in and remove all the items from the KB? You can have viruses etc inside the KB? Will Pearson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com