From: Marc Geddes (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 15 2005 - 23:46:01 MST
>About philosophy of mind: I agree somewhat with your
>criticism. My own
>approach to AI is founded on years of thinking I did
>about the philosophy of
>mind, as well as more scientific considerations. I
>think that Eliezer's
>work could use a little more depth in this area.
I agree with you Ben. I think Eli and co, brilliant
though they surely are, might have all missed the 'big
There is no clear-cut distinction between science and
philosophy. Indeed there is simply, to borrow a
phrase from Hawking, a gradual 'shading off' in
quality of thinking, from complete rigor to complete
nonsense. As was pointed out, all science started as
philosophy. Chemistry had it's roots in alchemy,
astronomy in astrology and so forth.
A few big insights may be sufficient to greatly cut
down the complexity of workable code. The complexity
of workable code may be much much much lower than
everyone believes. Everyone expects a workable
seed-FAI program to be really complex - to contain a
lot of initial 'hard-wired' structure. But suppose
it's not? Suppose there are really amazing short-cuts
that everyone has missed?
Of course, I imagine that there is trade-off between
complexity of the initial seed code and time until
hard time off. The less initial structure is
'hand-coded' the slower the rate of self-improvement I
guess. But what if a workable seed FAI can be coded
in only a few hundred lines of code?
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT