John_Maxwell_IV comments on Leaving LessWrong for a more rational life - Less Wrong

33 [deleted] 21 May 2015 07:24PM

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

Comments (268)

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

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 11 June 2015 04:02:44PM *  0 points [-]

In this essay I wrote:

if intelligence is a complicated, heterogeneous process where computation is spread relatively evenly among many modules, then improving the performance of an AGI gets tougher, because upgrading an individual module does little to improve the performance of the system as a whole.

I'm guessing this is likely to be true of general-purpose ANNs, meaning recursive self-improvement would be more difficult for a brain-like ANN than it might be for some other sort of AI? (This would be somewhat reassuring if it was true.)

Comment author: jacob_cannell 11 June 2015 10:17:27PM *  1 point [-]

meaning recursive self-improvement would be more difficult for a brain-like ANN than it might be for some other sort of AI?

It's not clear that there is any other route to AGI - all routes lead to "brain-like ANNs", regardless of what linguistic label we use (graphical models, etc).

General purpose RL - in ideal/optimal theoretical form - already implements recursive self-improvement in the ideal way. If you have an ideal/optimal general RL system running, then there are no remaining insights you could possibly have which could further improve its own learning ability.

The evidence is accumulating that general Bayesian RL can be efficiently approximated, that real brains implement something like this, and that very powerful general purpose AI/AGI can be built on the same principles.

Now, I do realize that by "recursive self-improvement" you probably mean a human level AGI consciously improving its own 'software design', using slow rule based/logic thinking of the type suitable for linguistic communication. But there is no reason to suspect that the optimal computational form of self-improvement should actually be subject to those constraints.

The other, perhaps more charitable view of "recursive self-improvement" is the more general idea of the point in time where AGI engineers/researchers takeover most of the future AGI engineering/research work. Coming up with new learning algorithms will probably be only a small part of the improvement work at that point. Implementations however can always be improved, and there is essentially an infinite space of better hardware designs. Coming up with new model architectures and training environments will also have scope for improvement.

Also, it doesn't really appear to matter much how many modules the AGI has, because improvement doesn't rely much on human insights into how each module works. Even with zero new 'theoerical' insights, you can just run the AGI on better hardware and it will be able to think faster or split into more copies. Either way, it will be able to speed up the rate at which it soaks up knowledge and automatically rewires itself (self-improves).