loqi comments on Let's reimplement EURISKO! - Less Wrong

19 Post author: cousin_it 11 June 2009 04:28PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (151)

Comments (151)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 11 June 2009 08:53:46PM *  1 point [-]

I used to think it's useful to study ad-hoc attempts at AGI, but it now seems to me that knowledge of these chaotic things is both very likely a dead end, even for destroying the world, and of a wrong character to progress towards FAI.

Comment author: loqi 11 June 2009 09:37:58PM 4 points [-]

I think one of the factors that contributes to interest in ad-hoc techniques is the prospect of a "thrilling discovery". One is allowed to fantasize that all of their time and effort may pay off suddenly and unpredictably, which makes the research seem that much more fun and exciting. This is in contrast to a more formal approach in which understanding and progress are incremental by their very nature.

I bring this up because I see it as a likely underlying motive for arguments of the form "ad-hoc technique X is worth pursuing even though it's not a formal approach".

Comment author: Annoyance 12 June 2009 04:47:24PM 7 points [-]

There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius which redefines and transcends those boundaries. Acknowledging our debt to the former, we yearn nonetheless for the latter. - Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "Address to the Faculty"

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 11 June 2009 09:55:32PM 0 points [-]

No, it actually looks (just barely) feasible to get a FOOM out of something ad-hoc, and there are even good reasons for expecting that. But it doesn't seem to be on the way towards deeper understanding. The best to hope for is catching it right when the FOOMing is imminent and starting to do serious theory, but the path of blind experimentation doesn't seem to be the most optimal one even towards blind FOOM.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 11 June 2009 11:02:30PM *  1 point [-]

That doesn't contradict what logi said. It could still be a motive.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 11 June 2009 11:07:18PM 0 points [-]

It could, but it won't be invalid motive, as I (maybe incorrectly) heard implied.

Comment author: loqi 12 June 2009 12:26:47AM 1 point [-]

I didn't mean to imply it was an invalid motive, merely a potential underlying motive. If it is valid in the sense that you mean (and I think it is), that's just reason to scrutinize such claims even more closely.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit