Sorry, I neglected to include my summary statement, now appended below. - Jef
Jef Allbright wrote: > Ben Goertzel wrote: > >> Finally, it is interesting to speculate regarding how self may differ >> in future AI systems as opposed to in humans. The relative stability >> we see in human selves may not exist in AI systems that can >> self-improve and change more fundamentally and rapidly than humans >> can. There may be a situation in which, as soon as a system has >> understood itself decently, it radically modifies itself and hence >> violates its existing self-model. Thus: intelligence without a >> long-term stable self. In this case the "attractor-ish" nature of >> the self holds only over much shorter time scales than for human >> minds or human-like minds. But the alternating process of forward >> and backward inference for self-construction is still critical, even >> though no reasonably stable self-constituting attractor ever >> emerges. The psychology of such intelligent systems will almost >> surely be beyond human beings' capacity for comprehension and >> empathy. > > Strange, it's almost as if you were looking over my shoulder > as I planted similar seeds of thought on the extropy list during the > last day. > > In regard to your "finally" paragraph, I would speculate that > advanced intelligence would tend to converge on a structure > of increasing stability feeding on increasing diversity. As > the intelligence evolved, a form of natural selection would > guide its structural development, not toward increasingly > desirable ends, but toward increasingly effective methods. A > necessary element of such a system, I speculate, must be an > increasingly rich source of diversity, so I imagine a sort of > fractal spherical (in 3D) tree-like structure where ongoing > growth involves both the sprouting of new branches > (diversity) and the strengthening of the support structure > (reinforcement of principles that are repeatedly tested and > seem to work). Of course there's no reason to limit this structure > to 3D. > > Welcome to the Tree-mind, the Hive-mind is dead. ;) The "self" aspect would be a function of any particular point of interaction on the tree structure. I expect that the center point would have very little to say, but would have a profound sense of self IFF it had anything to say. > - Jef ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
