Some of you may remember me from other places, and once before on this list. But I thought now is the correct time for some criticism of my ideas as they are slightly refined.
Now first off I have recently renounced my status as an AI researcher, as studying intelligence is not what I wish to do. Instead I wish to study systems that may or may not end up being called intelligent by other people. If I can get them to do what I want, it doesn't matter whether they are considered intelligent or conscious. As what I want to build is best considered an external brain add-on I see no moral problems with this. So why post to this list? Because the criterion for what I want to do crosses over quite a lot with what people call general intelligence. So your criticism will be useful. I want to build systems that can potentially alter the performance of the following attributes of the system, as much as possible whilst still having a stable system: - Functionality: the output given the input. - Timeliness: the output given the input as near as possible to certain time - Energy usage of the system: So it can preserve battery life in mobile situations - Differential system resources per sub-task: Similar to nars - Robustness: The ability to alter itself to cope with unexpected input and errors, such as overheating or cosmic rays. - Patterns of EM radiation given off as it processes: Mainly for completeness sake, but you may want it not to interfere with your HAM or medical equipment As human + machine can do all these things (by installing a different operating system for example), it should be possible for a machine to do it by itself. I also specify that the most basic type of change is unproven change, so that you can escape the initial axioms and not be constrained too much by the initial assumptions of the designer. That is not to say you could not have provers on top of the experimental part of change, but that they would be subject to experimentation and changing of axioms and deductive methods. Now as can be seen by the patterns of EM radiation and energy usage factors, the system that changes has to be very close to the hardware, on the level of the operating system. But if we experiment with changes to the operating system what is to stop one part becoming a virus and destroying the others? Not a lot, so our hardware would need safeguards to stop unintentionally malicious programs taking over. So at least from my point of view to get very adaptive systems we need first to concentrate on the hardware (or at least for my limited budget, a software emulation of the desired hardware) before building the software that actually makes it adaptive. I have a lot more to say about the design of the hardware, and even something about part of the design of the software. But I will leave that to a later date. Will Pearson ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
