Matthias,
You don't seem to understand creative/emergent problems (and I find this
certainly not universal, but v. common here).
If your chess-playing AGI is to tackle a creative/emergent problem (at a
fairly minor level) re chess - it would have to be something like: "find a
new way for chess pieces to move - and therefore develop a new form of
chess" (without any preparation other than some knowledge about different
rules and how different pieces in different games move). Or something like
"get your opponent to take back his move before he removes his hand from the
piece" - where some use of psychology, say, might be appropriate rather
than anything to do directly with chess itself.
IOW by definition a creative/emergent problem is one where you have to bring
about a given effect by finding radically new kinds of objects that move or
relate in radically new kinds of ways - to produce that effect. By
definition, you *do not know which domain is appropriate to solving the
problem,* (what kinds of objects or moves are relevant), let alone have a
set of instructions to hold your hand every step of the way - and the
eventual solution will involve crossing hitherto unrelated domains.
That, as Kauffman also insists, is an absolute show stopper. Which is why
the show that is AGI cannot not only not go on, but hasn't even started.
No form of logic or maths or programming - no preexisting frame - is
sufficient to deal with such problems - and cross domains in surprising
ways. If those are the only relevant disciplines you know, then you will
indeed have major difficulties understanding creative problems. They do not
prepare you.
PS Ditto all evolutionary steps present creative problems of discovery. For
example - "give me a *biological* piece of the puzzle that explains how
humans/apes with relatively curved spines acquired erect spines" (an
explanation that reveals something about the *internal* processes by which
permanent changes in the body's blueprints come about - as opposed to
something about external, natural selection).
Matthias: > The problem of the emergent behavior already arises within a
chess program
which
visits millions of chess positions within a second.
I think the problem of the emergent behavior equals the fine tuning
problem
which I have already mentioned:
We will know, that the main architecture of our AGI works. But in our
first
experiments
we will observe a behavior of the AGI which we don't want to have. We will
have several parameters which we can change.
The big question will be: Which values of the parameters will let the AGI
do
the right things.
This could be an important problem for the development of AGI because in
my
opinion the difference between a human and a monkey is only fine tuning.
And
nature needed millions of years for this fine tuning.
I think there is no way to avoid this problem but this problem is no show
stopper.
- Matthias
Mike Tintner wrote:
This is fine and interesting, but hasn't anybody yet read Kauffman's
Reinventing the Sacred (publ this year)? The entire book is devoted to
this
theme and treats it globally, ranging from this kind of emergence in
physics, to emergence/evolution of natural species, to
emergence/deliberate
creativity in the economy and human thinking. Kauffman systematically -
and
correctly - argues that the entire, current mechanistic worldview of
science
is quite inadequate to dealing with and explaining creativity in every
form
throughout the world and at every level of evolution. Kauffman also
explicitly deals with the kind of problems AGI must solve if it is to be
AGI.
In fact, everything is interrelated here. Ben argues:
"we are not trying to understand some natural system, we are trying to
**engineer** systems "
Well, yes, but how you get emergent physical properties of matter, and how
you get species evolving from each other with "creative," scientifically
unpredictable new organs and features , can be *treated* as
design/engineering problems (even though, of course, nature was the
"designer").
In fact, AGI *should* be doing this - should be understanding how its
particular problem of getting a machine to be creative, fits in with the
science-wide problem of understanding creativity in all its forms. The two
are mutually enriching, (indeed mandatory when it comes to a) the human
and
animal brain's creativity and an AGI's and b) the evolution of the brain
and the evolutionary path of AGI's).
-------------------------------------------
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/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
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
