Wikipedia: Moravec's Paradox

cousin_it

Linky. Quotes:

Moravec's paradox is the discovery by artificial intelligence and robotics researchers that, contrary to traditional assumptions, high-level reasoning requires very little computation, but low-level sensorimotor skills require enormous computational resources.

[...]

We should expect the difficulty of reverse-engineering any human skill to be roughly proportional to the amount of time that skill has been evolving in animals.

The oldest human skills are largely unconscious and so appear to us to be effortless.

Therefore, we should expect skills that appear effortless to be difficult to reverse-engineer, but skills that require effort may not necessarily be difficult to engineer at all.

Linky. Quotes:

Moravec's paradox is the discovery by artificial intelligence and robotics researchers that, contrary to traditional assumptions, high-level reasoning requires very little computation, but low-level sensorimotor skills require enormous computational resources.

[...]

We should expect the difficulty of reverse-engineering any human skill to be roughly proportional to the amount of time that skill has been evolving in animals.

The oldest human skills are largely unconscious and so appear to us to be effortless.

Therefore, we should expect skills that appear effortless to be difficult to reverse-engineer, but skills that require effort may not necessarily be difficult to engineer at all.

The fact that these algorithms and architecture have been so successfully retargeted to such a variety of gaits and grasping appendages suggests to me that there is an elegant core organization.

I don't think the rest of biology supports the thesis that success in varied environments implies a simple and elegant core. And it doesn't seem to follow from standard Occam's razor either. Are the shortest algorithms the most efficient or the most retargetable? This doesn't sound right at all. But then again, I don't know much about biology, please set me right if I'm wrong.

"Elegant" was probably the wrong word. "Modular" is better. I think that biology does support the idea that reuse in biology is most successful when what is reused is a "module" with some of the same virtues that make software modules reusable and retargetable - they are naturally parameterized, they are strongly coherent, and they have loose coupling to other subsystems.

Examples in biology are the reuse of the core genetic machinery of translation, transcription, and replication, as well as the core metabolism of biochem... (read more)

0Pavitra15y

The fact that it's retargetable and evolved rather than designed seems to suggest elegance. I can imagine evolution producing a moderately complex narrow adaptation, or a simple one that as a side effect of its simplicity happens to generalize, but I don't see how evolution could produce a complex generalizing adaptation.

22

Wikipedia: Moravec's Paradox

22

22

22

Wikipedia: Moravec's Paradox

22

22