On 7/12/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I look closely at what you write, you are somewhat close to me - but you
are in fact not saying explicitly and precisely what I am.

I am saying upfront: language and symbol systems are general and abstract
and open to infinite, particular, concrete interpretations, including the
opposite of any interpretation you might prefer. It is therefore impossible
when programming an agent in general language or concepts, to control its
particular interpretations of those concepts - whether those concepts are
"help humanity" or "make humans happy" etc.

You don't say this upfront, and you do seem to imply that it might be
possible to control the agent sometimes, if not at others.

If you basically agree with my statement, then both your exposition and, I'm
sure, mine can be improved.

I - mostly - agree with what you are saying, yes. You are right in
that I did not explictly word in that very way, even though the
underlying thought is basically the same.

However, I'm not sure if I'd agree with a sentiment saying that it is
always /impossible/ to control an agent's interpretations. Obviously,
if you merely create a reasoning system and then use natural language
to feed it goals you're bound to be screwed. But I wonder if one
couldn't take the very networks of the agent that /create/ the
interpretations and tune them so that they work in the intended
fashion. Of course, this would be a project of enormous magnitude, as
all concepts tend to be defined in terms of each other, not to mention
that they change over time... a massive effort, to be sure, and
possibly too difficult to be humanly achievable. But that's still not
a /guarantee/ of impossibility.


--
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tspro1/ | http://xuenay.livejournal.com/

Organizations worth your time:
http://www.singinst.org/ | http://www.crnano.org/ | http://lifeboat.com/

-----
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/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=22779592-e5cc0f

Reply via email to