2008/9/15 Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I guess that intuitively, argument goes like this: > 1) economy is more powerful than individual agents, it allows to > increase the power of intelligence in individual agents; > 2) therefore, economy has an intelligence-increasing potency; > 3) so, we can take stupid agents, apply the economy potion to them and > get powerful intelligence as a result.
I like economies. They are not a magic bullet, but part of the solution at the low level. Let me see if I can explain why, note please that I am explaining why economies might be used in human type fallible systems, very improbably fallible systems (the sort required for friendliness) seem improbable to me. Take the problem of the human brain blood flow. You only have a certain amount of blood to flow to each part of the brain. Now there are three obvious things that you can do: 1) Have a centralised bit of the brain that makes choices about how to distribute the blood flow. This in turn would need a large blood flow to it. It would also need to be vastly complex and know what was going on in all bits of the brain so as it changed it could make sensible decisions about how to direct the blood flow. It might end up taking a large proportion of the blood flow, and if any errors were in it they would not self-correct. 2) Each bit of the brain indicates how much blood it needs at the moment. However if any bit of the brain thinks it needs more blood than it actually needs it could sit their stuck in a loop wasting lots of oxygen. 3) Each bit of the brain pays a bit of non-forgable credit for the blood flow they get. They get credit by participating in an economy with the amygdala as the ultimate money source. If they pay more credit than they get, they tend to lose credit and go bankrupt, so they can't foul up the system any more. Now this is a very hypothetical view of the brain. But I think the answer to how the brain decides to allocate blood flow would be more similar to the third case, expecting errors but self-correcting and taking up minimal resources. However despite it being nothing to do with bayesian reasoning or rational decision making, if we didn't have a good way of allocating blood flow in our brains we really couldn't do very much of use at all (as blood would be directed to the wrong parts at the wrong times). Decentralised economies of dumb things can be somewhat useful. See for example Learning Classifier Systems. Personally I would prefer to create economies of things as smart as our best systems. They would then work on solving different parts of how to win. Will Pearson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
