From: Mahesha Hiremath (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Oct 11 2010 - 19:16:59 MDT
I thought sl4 was long dead. But it's good to see people discussing ideas.
Let's keep it alive. :)
Now to the topic of discussion, when earlier researchers developed initial
versions of AI programs, they believed small mutations, cross over,
selection of fittest, and reproduction over many generations would ensure
elegant solutions. Most believed the AI would now be a matter of enough
computing power and memory.
It turned out that even after much powerful processors and larger memory,
programs simply ran iterations without showing much anticipated improvement
in the "intelligence" so to speak.
Next generation of researchers were began focusing on Neural networking,
knowledge representation, machine learning and patter recognition. Apart
from these, development of theories like computational complexities helped
to see if at all a solution can be obtained.
You see if you get heartache, you go to doctor of IQ 110, not to
a mathematician of IQ 135.
Genetic algorithms may be stupid. But who designed your brain?
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Robin Lee Powell <
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:49:53PM -0700, Matt Mahoney wrote:
> > From: Robin Lee Powell <email@example.com>
> > > John seems to think that AI will magically acquire innate
> > > resistance to whatever goal structure humans give it. We (this
> > > list) have been around this bush many times; you might want to
> > > avoid getting sucked in.
> > It depends on whether you are talking about self improving AI.
> > Intelligence depends on knowledge and computing power. For now,
> > both come from humans. But once you have robots building robots
> > and passing their knowledge to their offspring, then you have
> > evolution.
> *NO*. Things *building* other things, to deliberate design
> specifications, is exactly *NOT* evolution. "evolution" doesn't
> mean "anything that has incremental improvements". Designed things
> are *not* evolutionary.
> Sorry, people talking about the "evolution" of designed things, like
> corporations or aircraft, is a huge pet peeve of mine. Evolution is
> *STUPID*. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0 Designed
> things need not be in the same way.
> > In that case, goals that don't improve fitness are unstable and
> > John is right.
> Only if the designers don't make any actual design decisions, and
> just used some random genetic algorithm or something.
> You seem to be saying that robot/AI babies will be, like, sexual
> results of their parents, so that they're incremental changes an
> improvements that then may or may not be selected by a fitness
> function? I have no idea why or how such a thing would occur. If
> it *did*, then yes, I agree. But it seems profoundly unlikely.
> Evolutionary processes are incredibly slow and stupid, which is why
> we have technology; I find it hard to believe that a race that
> didn't have to deal with any of that crap would deliberatly engineer
> in back in.
> http://intelligence.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
> Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
> is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false"
> is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT