From: James Rogers (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 20 2002 - 15:47:23 MDT
On Sun, 2002-05-19 at 17:02, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> It's not a question of
> solving enormous engineering problems through Incredible Dauntless Efforts
> but of creating designs that are So Impossibly Clever they don't run into
> those enormous engineering problems. I think many of the problems you're
> running into are symptoms of trying to solve the problem too simply.
> Engineering problems will be greater for DGI because DGI contains more
> complexity, but I consider it a critical, unavoidable problem that the
> overall system design should enable *adequate solutions* to work. Usually,
> when you add pieces to a system, it becomes easier to break. This is
> because people aren't thinking in terms of creating smooth fitness
> landscapes, oversolving problems, and creating multiple routes to
> solutions. If you oversimplify a mind design, you concentrate too much
> functionality into individual pieces of the system. There aren't multiple
> routes around things and each individual piece has to do a lot of work.
This implies a rather strange view of engineering. Engineering of all
types is about generating the Minimum Description Length of a set of
parameters. All engineers ever do is massage the system they are given
into a physical MDL of the problem. Impossibly Clever designs in any
type of engineering sense only means that you've discovered regional
minima in a design space by intuition or accident that you would have
found by rigorously reducing the apparent complexity of the system using
normal iterative methods. The result is the same either way.
Engineering is Occam's Razor in a nutshell. If you get the wrong
result, it is because you forgot a relevant parameter or changed the
spec in the middle of the design process.
Eliezer, it sounds very much like you are arguing in favor of Ptolemic
epicycles, adding unnecessary parameters to the design space rather than
searching for a solution that represents the MDL for the parameters and
specification given. The MDL is pretty much the definition of clever
and elegant design; whether or not a solution meets subjective aesthetic
criteria is irrelevant. Engineering complexity is not a merit badge, it
is the hallmark of bad design. I realize that AI is more open-ended than
your typical engineering project, but I would very strongly question any
claim that folding capabilities into a smaller number of unified
constructs is poor engineering; I don't see how anyone can call this
"oversimplification" unless one can also demonstrate which critical
parameters have necessarily been dropped in the simplification process.
Proper engineering requires designing from the essential mathematics and
facts and trying to get them to intersect with the specification. Far
too often, especially in AI, people design from the spec, adding the
essential mathematics to the function points as required to meet the
spec and attempting to tie it together later. Most engineering failures
can be attributed to not making this distinction. Both cases will yield
valid results, but the latter case will be vastly more complicated than
the former as rule and therefore much more likely to be intractable as
an engineering problem. Much of the iterative reduction that is
engineering is necessary primarily because people often design from the
spec. Unfortunately, if the "design from spec" approach proves to be
intractable, you'll never have a starting point from which to reduce the
problem to the elegant solution. This all applies to AI just as much as
it does from any other engineering discipline.
Ben obviously has a good grasp of the pragmatic engineering issues. This
not a big deal when arguing on an emailing list, but trying to ignore
engineering tenets in practice will kill a project just as quickly as
ignoring the tenets of economics, regardless of how theoretically
correct your design is. Virtually all "adequate solutions" to Seed AI
are essentially intractable as engineering problems, and it is therefore
paramount that the solution attempted be as "engineer-able" as possible.
This also means not making any tangential design decisions until the
core parameters have been reduced to their essentials. Bad engineering
and unnecessary complexity becomes a crushing weight much faster than
most people expect in practice.
I'm not trying to be accusatory, just making an observation and giving
some third party feedback on this banter.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:39 MDT