The paper can be found at http://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/nature_of_self_improving_ai.pdf
Read the appendix, p37ff. He's not making arguments -- he's explaining, with a few pointers into the literature, some parts of completely standard and accepted economics and game theory. It's all very basic stuff. On Sunday 25 May 2008 06:26:59 am, Jim Bromer wrote: > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Richard Loosemore said: > > If you look at his paper carefully, you will see that at every step of > the way he introduces assumptions as if they were obvious facts ... and > in all the cases I have bothered to think through, these all stem from > the fact that he has a particular kind of mechanism in mind (one which > has a goal stack and a utility function). There are so many of these > assertions pulled out of think air that I found it gave me a headache > just to read the paper. ... > > But this is silly: where was his examination of the systems various > motives? Where did he consider the difference between different > implementations of the entire motivational mechanism (my distinction > between GS and MES systems)? Nowhere. He just asserts, without > argument, that the system would be obsessed, and that any attempt by us > to put locks on the system would result in "an arms race of measures and > countermeasures." > > That is just one example of how he pulls conclusions out of thin air. > ------------------------------------------- > > Your argument about the difference between a GS and an MES system is a strawman argument. Omohundro never made the argument, nor did he touch on it as far as I can tell. I did not find his paper very interesting either, but you are the one who seems to be pulling conclusions out of thin air. > > You can introduce the GS vs MES argument if you want, but you cannot then argue from the implication that everyone has to refer to it or else stand guilty of pulling arguments out of thin air. > > His paper Nature of Self Improving Artificial Intelligence September 5, 2007, revised January 21, 2008 provides a lot of reasoning. I don't find the reasoning compelling, but the idea that he is just pulling conclusions out of thin air is just bluster. > > Jim Bromer > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- 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=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
