From: Matt Mahoney (matmahoney@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Sep 16 2008 - 12:31:48 MDT
I think you are right that we can't distinguish between code and data. If we use the definitions in my paper then there is no difference between RSI (the program rewriting itself) and a simple program with a goal (meaning that the utility of the output would increase if its run time limit were relaxed).
So how could RSI be defined in a meaningful way?
Some examples I might consider to be self improvement:
- Accumulating knowledge on how to better accumulate and use knowledge.
- Books on how to write books.
- Computer aided software engineering.
- Computer aided hardware design of faster computers.
- Genetically engineering humans for larger brains.
Some examples I would NOT consider RSI:
- Machine learning.
- Human education.
- Evolution.
- Development of language and culture.
- Economic development.
The distinction I want to make is that RSI does not make use of external information not available at the start. Specifically, the agents who execute the improvement algorithm must know what the goal is, how to compute it, and how to test themselves and/or their offspring as to whether they are making progress toward this goal. In my examples of non-RSI, the agents and the systems have different goals. The teacher has different goals than the student. Evolution has the "goal" of increasing competitive fitness, which is at odds with the goals of agents that want to eat, have sex, and not die. The economy has a "goal" of producing a complex organization that can support a large population efficiently, as opposed to the goals of individuals to acquire money.
So how can this idea be expressed formally as a property of Turing machines?
-- Matt Mahoney, matmahoney@yahoo.com
--- On Mon, 9/15/08, Denis <dnsflex@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Denis <dnsflex@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [sl4] A model of RSI
> To: sl4@sl4.org
> Date: Monday, September 15, 2008, 4:09 PM
> I think if "RSI" mean a program searching to
> improve its behaviour without using others data can be a
> good idea but it is very different to a "rewriting
> itself" program.
> The "rewriting itsef" is a ill-definition and the
> only thing is possible to achieve in this way is a reduction
> on a costant C.
> For example given an universal Turing machine accepting in
> input a program ( program without parameters) this turing
> machine executing the program can use new empty cells or
> rewrite a part or all the cells of the starting program.
> If this program rewrite itself partially or totally by C
> cells the only advantage you can have is to use also this C
> cells in the elaboration.
> There is not substantially difference from program and
> data.
> The trick is that you can move the program in the costant C
> and this disappear asymptotically.
> "Rewiting itself" is only an illusion.
> A nice example is the Hanoy tower . In the recursive
> program solving this problem you can watch at the stack and
> you can think to it as a program with the istructions to
> move the stones and this programs change! The trick is that
> you are watching the wrong program!
>
> Denis.
>
> --- On Sun, 9/14/08, Matt Mahoney
> <matmahoney@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Matt Mahoney <matmahoney@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: [sl4] A model of RSI
> > To: "sl4" <sl4@sl4.org>
> > Date: Sunday, September 14, 2008, 7:16 PM
> > I have written a (rather trivial) recursively self
> improving
> > program, along with a draft of a paper that tries to
> give a
> > reasonable but rigorous definition of RSI. Any
> comments are
> > appreciated.
> >
> > http://www.mattmahoney.net/rsi.pdf
> >
> > -- Matt Mahoney, matmahoney@yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:03 MDT