Andrew, Vladamir, Mark, et al, This discussion is parallel to an ongoing discussion I had with several neuroscientists back in the 1970s-1980s. My assertion was that once you figure out just what it is that the neurons are doing, that the difference between neural operation and optimal operation will be negligible. This because of the 200 million years they have had to refine their operation. Of course, the other argument was that there was just so much that could be done in wetware. I invited anyone with real wet observations to put this to the test, which was done on several occasions - which is where my "logarithms of the probabilities of assertions being true" observation evolved from. Of course, a probabilistic AND NOT function is discontinuous at 1 (1-x=0, and the logarithm of zero is, well you know, we don't have that symbol on our keyboards yet), and some/many wet neurons have EXACTLY that same discontinuous function to within the accuracy of the equipment observing them.
Note in passing that all operation presumes a NATURAL surrounding, which we have virtually eliminated, crafting a new synthetic environment that actually RESISTS AGI-like manipulations. I believe that the key to conquering our synthetic environment will be in decidedly NON-biological approaches - or perhaps hyper-biological approaches, e.g. credibly threatening the Judge! So far I have seen no mention of how our synthetic environment, designed to resist changing by others, will also resist manipulation by AGIs, and hence new "logic" will be needed, e.g. reverse reductio ad absurdum. This distorts the entire optimality discussion. Steve Richfield =============== On 6/11/08, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 11, 2008, at 5:56 AM, Mark Waser wrote: > >> It is an open question as to whether or not mathematics will arrive at an >>> elegant solution that out-performs the sub-optimal wetware algorithm. >>> >> >> What is the basis for your using the term sub-optimal when the question is >> still open? If mathematics can't arrive at a solution that out-performs the >> wetware algorithm, then the wetware isn't suboptimal. >> > > > Lack of an elegant solution, one that is more efficient than the wetware > methods in the broadest general case, does not imply that mathematics does > not already describe superior average case methods. Wetware methods are > general, but tend toward brute-force search methods that can be improved > upon. A number of recent papers suggest that an elegant, general solutions > may be possible; it is an active area of DARPA-funded theoretical > mathematics research. > > None of which has anything to do with AI, except to the extent AI may > involve efficiently manipulating models of spaces. > > > Sloppy thinking and hidden assumptions as usual . . . . >> > > > The irony is rich. > > J. Andrew Rogers > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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
