From: Ben Goertzel (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Feb 27 2002 - 10:43:43 MST
> No, merely expressing a well known truth about software engineering.. And
> not only about software engineering, engineering in general. Minds are one
> thing: complex. Look at the hardware layer, it is that very obviously. And
> we're getting increased evidence that these structures are indeed doing a
> lot, are not very reducible. This is not an intuition, I can cite you a
> few papers indicating that there's not much averaging going on. Each
> incoming bit of info from the trenches makes me lose any residual optimism
> I had.
I think this is an intuitive assessement of a diverse, messy, inconclusive
and in-process body of scientific knowledge.
> There's a bareer to the complexity of a system you can build as a single
> person. Different persons have different ceilings, mine is quite low.
> Teams do not really scale in that regard. A ceiling of a group is not
> dramatically higher than of a single individual, and the ceiling of a
> large group can be actually lower. This is basic software engineering
The Novamente project right now involves 7 people, and our complexity
ceiling is *dramatically* higher than that of any one of us, because we
communicate very well together, and have different strengths and weaknesses
I think we could add about 5 more people to the group (assuming they were
draw from our existing pool of known-to-be-compatible people) before we
reached a point where effectiveness stopped increasing significantly with
each new person.
The Webmind Inc. AI team definitely reached a point where each new person
added contributed only incrementally to total productivity.
> General intelligence is not property of a simple system. Far from it.
> As a result I predict that human software engineers coding an AI
> explicitly (i.e. using not stochastic/noisy/evolutionary methods) are
> going to fall short of the goal.
And as I said, you're welcome to your pessimistic intuition ;>
> > I agree that goal-directed self-modification is a specialized mental
> > function, similar (very roughly speaking) to, say, vision processing, or
> > mathematical reasoning, or social interaction. However, also like these
> > other things, it will be achieved by a combination of general
> > intelligence processes with more specialized heuristics.
> Am I correct to assume that we're talking about explicit codification of
> knowledge destilled from human experts? Is there any reason to suspect
> that we're going to do any better than Lenat & Co? The record track so far
> is not overwhelming.
You are not correct in your assumption.
I think that explicit codification will play at most a supporting role, not
a central role.
As I've said before, I think the Mizar (www.mizar.org) corpus of
mathematical knowledge may play a valuable role at some point.
> Um, C++ can easily lose an order of magnitude of performance over C, if
> you don't know what you're doing. Not to mention tweaking the compiler
> flags, and jiggle the code, trying to not run into performance killers
> (longword align, for instance).
> We seem to mean very different systems, when speaking high-performance.
> The absence of high-performance computing types in AI is notable.
Actually, this barb may be appropriate when aimed at me, but not at my
Novamente-team colleagues who are doing most of the C++ programming. They
are pretty damn good C programmers. We are in fact not incurring much OO
overhead in our codebase right now; most of the code is straight ANSI C,
with object-orientation only used carefully and in ways that do not cause
significant performance penalties.
In general, I think there are plenty of high-performance computing types in
traditional academic AI. Look at the people who made Deep Thought, later
transformed into Deep Blue. The problem in my view is a lack of "general
> Um, implementing a runaway AI is certainly not my problem. I'm interested
> in modelling biological organisms, which does not involve such dangerous
> components. This is the wrong forum to discuss it, however.
Biotechnology has many potential dangers associated with it as well.
Perhaps your work in particular does not, however.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT