1. How many meta levels of thought is
the Novamente system going to be capable of? Is it a set number based on
it's structure, or will it be able to create new levels on-the-fly as it
thinks it needs them? Will this require structural self-modification or
is it a built-in
Ben, can I ask you a question? Okay, can I
ask you another one?
1. How many meta levels of thought is the
Novamente system going to be capable of? Is it a set number based on it's
structure, or will it be able to create new levels on-the-fly as it thinks it
needs them? Will this requir
ct: Re: [agi] probability theory and the
philosophy of science
Ben, I get the impression from reading this
article that it is very closely related to your work on Novamente. In
trying to design a mind that is intelligent and useful you have decided that
the scientist comes closest a
>You certainly wouldn't want to build super-human processing AI that was
fascinated by astrology and tried
>to solve every problem using only that. How to keep your AI from getting
as messed up as some of us?
>Of course, make it a scientist.
the basic premise in building a transhuman ai is that
Ben, I get the impression from reading this article
that it is very closely related to your work on Novamente. In trying to
design a mind that is intelligent and useful you have decided that the scientist
comes closest as an example. So you are trying to figure out how the best
scientists
Philip,
I did note, in my essay, the phenomenon of "subpersonalities." Some
individuals who are highly adventurous risk-takers in intellectual domains,
are highly conservative in other areas of life. This shows that even in
humans, with our inflexible psychological architecture, it's not a simp
Hi Ben,
I've just read: "Science, Probability and Human Nature: A
Sociological/ Computational/ Probabilist Philosophy of Science". It's
accessible (thanks) and very thought provoking.
As I read the paper, I imagined how these questions might relate to the
creation and training and activities
