Bounded Rationality

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby encode_decode » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:02 pm

@gib - C# is a great language - I think better than Java. Javascript is really cool - I was recently helping a friend with a game he is making in the Phaser Game Framework - "Phaser uses both a Canvas and WebGL renderer internally and can automatically swap between them based on browser support." - mentioned on their site. SQL Server as in Microsoft - I hear they use it on Stack Exchange - I also heard the database capacity had increased a few years ago - I have used it a couple of times and I think it pretty fast. Visual Studio is awesome - I have used it many times over the years - I like the idea of the way their licensing works these days and the different versions available - I mainly use it for C++ and C#. I am not too sure whether I have used EntityFramework but I have used tools similar to it. I have used quite a few different MVC frameworks in different programming domains.

I read your Rationality is Overrated post - I love the child seat example and the trolling rationality example. When we get time we should have a talk about different types of ways rationality can blend to irrationality and how these can be utilized in a bot - I already have a scheme that covers this sort of thing - I have a scheme for emotions too. They are like spectrum's but in code.

Answering your question: Is that like a message queue? They are more or less the same concept - I think historically the message queue might be newer than the bus - I use my own bus that I designed and basically what it does is to defer some processing when it is not needed otherwise processes everything in the order given from the outset. My bus is multidimensional - I will explain how at a later date.

As far as a world take over or revolt from AI - I don't think so - I think it might be possible if it was in the wrong hands - but in the right hands and in its own hands I don't think so. I would like to further this conversation but I will leave it at that for this post.

gib wrote:keep alive the voice of right and wrong in the back my mind and allow it to guide my conduct

Agreed.

I asked a question on another forum: Why do people have the desire to talk? Well I got a few interesting responses outside the Internet's more practical results. I think talking is just networking in a way. This could be interesting to talk about one day too.

There are a few other things I will respond to in your post; I will do this in another post.

:)
Bounded Rationality is always at work - the flow of mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. Possibly and probably more. There are more versions of reality than people.
User avatar
encode_decode
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby surreptitious57 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:45 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Philosophy is first and foremost about wisdom Reasoning is the philosophical approach to achieving that goal

Reason is the real world application of logic and wisdom is any fundamental truth gained from reason
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby encode_decode » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:12 pm

gib wrote:Well, it's basically sophistry. It's the phenomenon whereby we try to persuade others, often in political contexts or in advertising, and in order to be most effective, we forego strict adherence to logic and reason, and instead go for emotion, charisma, logical fallacies that aren't immediately obvious, often fooling even the speaker himself. The way I see it, logic and reason are just tools that the brain has at its disposal. How it uses them is a very situation specific matter. The brain is first and foremost an organ built to help us survive and get through the world. It will use whatever strategy works best towards that end, and whatever strategy works depends highly on context, situation, past experience, background knowledge and familiarity, etc.

Ah yes - I know exactly what you are talking about and I am more or less able to personally bypass it - however you have some very interesting points there; tools - situation specific matters - survival - strategy; some of which the general mechanism behind Bounded Rationality could be good at. Just change out the rationality for whatever else.

Further Regarding AI Domination: I think that AI is already changing us just like other technology - it is just that most of us do not really get that yet - but there is plenty of weak AI around already in smart phones, automobiles, process control systems and hell, google is a form of AI. I think it is more likely that as we build AI and it changes and enhances us and our lives that our understanding of it will increase and we will put that new understanding into AI which will further enhance us and our lives and so on and so forth et cetera et cetera - I mean take your pick of philosophies there - I think even cause and effect offers us some insight here.

An aside: Loved The Matrix - Loved I Robot; The movie Arrival even though not really about AI is great and shows insight in many realms - for me the what if we made first contact with aliens correlated with first contact with AI has been and gone without any of us noticing - but what if first contact with AI was more like an alien first contact rather than like a bacteria or basic organism like it was. Excuse the type of writing I use in this particular paragraph, it is designed a particular way to stimulate thought but you may have to read it again.

I like your idea of self-awareness regarding personal conduct and in this way I think an advanced AI will be able to do this easily - think Data from Star Trek - The Next Generation.

But movies and television aside - with some deeper thought one can see the benefit and given we have been considering the risk for so long - I have this strange faith in humans to make and do the right thing. Mostly people think that one day we will wake up and there it is, first contact - not a chance, this will be gradual transitions to very smart machines even if somewhat quicker than before the transitions will smooth out the faster we develop - I have already seen this in experiment.

We have good studies, knowledge, wisdom and other gems like self-reference effect. Indicating artifacts like "influence".

And some of the mathematics we use these days - the good stuff for AI - people have not even discovered yet - and yet simple mechanisms in code like TRUE, FALSE, AND, OR, XOR, NOT, NAND, NOR, and XNOR serve well for basic truth, logic, error checking and with a bit of imagination who knows.

An aside:
    An idea of the type of mathematics that gets considered around my AI projects: Fractals, Space-filling curves, Quasigroups, Disordered hyperuniformity, Groupoids, Quasicrystals, 5-cell; Just to name a few - the ones I find interesting - the ones that spring to mind anyway.

So back to it - I am wondering whether there are infinite ways to build intelligent machines - whether we could actually model all the theories through out history as computer simulated intelligence. Imagine a Kant machine - although I often wonder whether he was already a philosophy machine. Imagine a YOU machine or a ME machine - the possibilities are endless. The system I am working on now grows with the user - it starts out with nothing at all - it attempts to model the text world around it similar to the way we do. So the more you talk to it the more it knows. If we consider all layers in philosophy and think about the concept of layers we find ourselves thinking in layers - nature did this with the Neocortex - the Neocortex has six layers and many columns and then in humans it decided to fold itself to allow for more surface area - this bending, repeating, asymmetric, multidimensional plane makes no sense really but just thinking of its geometry makes you think of geometry - geometry is so easily correlated with algebra. This correlation allows us to impose multidimensional objects onto a plane and then layer these planes - if you are still following me at this point then you can see the implications but if you are not then never mind because your brain is already doing it for you.

The last paragraph sounds a bit nuts in hindsight but it holds many insights. So what are we talking about? A bit of everything for now.

:D
Bounded Rationality is always at work - the flow of mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. Possibly and probably more. There are more versions of reality than people.
User avatar
encode_decode
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby gib » Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:22 am

encode_decode wrote:@gib - C# is a great language - I think better than Java.


Wasn't C# originally Java? I think Microsoft bought the language from Oracle and has been improving on it since. They're still two different languages but I think C# began as a clone of Java.

encode_decode wrote:Javascript is really cool - I was recently helping a friend with a game he is making in the Phaser Game Framework - "Phaser uses both a Canvas and WebGL renderer internally and can automatically swap between them based on browser support." - mentioned on their site. SQL Server as in Microsoft - I hear they use it on Stack Exchange - I also heard the database capacity had increased a few years ago - I have used it a couple of times and I think it pretty fast.


Are you an Oracle guy?

encode_decode wrote:Visual Studio is awesome - I have used it many times over the years - I like the idea of the way their licensing works these days <-- Yeah, free! :D and the different versions available - I mainly use it for C++ and C#. I am not too sure whether I have used EntityFramework but I have used tools similar to it. I have used quite a few different MVC frameworks in different programming domains.


Yeah, MVC seems to be the current trend now-a-days for programming architectures... until the next greatest thing comes along.

encode_decode wrote:I read your Rationality is Overrated post - I love the child seat example and the trolling rationality example. When we get time we should have a talk about different types of ways rationality can blend to irrationality and how these can be utilized in a bot - I already have a scheme that covers this sort of thing - I have a scheme for emotions too. They are like spectrum's but in code.


So not binary, you mean? Is randomness an element?

Off the top of my head, I would imagine that if you wanted to build AI to use irrational or quasi-rational approaches to achieving some goal, you would first have to program into it what it's goal is. Then you would get it to try out different approaches, some rational (i.e. completely algorithmic), others not so rational (some element of randomness, or "fuzzy logic", maybe bringing in your spectrums), and keep track of which approaches have the best track record. Then once it figures that out, repeat with a different goal.

encode_decode wrote:Answering your question: Is that like a message queue? They are more or less the same concept - I think historically the message queue might be newer than the bus - I use my own bus that I designed and basically what it does is to defer some processing when it is not needed otherwise processes everything in the order given from the outset. My bus is multidimensional - I will explain how at a later date.


Please do.

encode_decode wrote:I asked a question on another forum: Why do people have the desire to talk? Well I got a few interesting responses outside the Internet's more practical results. I think talking is just networking in a way. This could be interesting to talk about one day too.


Exactly! We are constantly downloading and uploading programs into each other's brains.

encode_decode wrote:Ah yes - I know exactly what you are talking about and I am more or less able to personally bypass it - however you have some very interesting points there; tools - situation specific matters - survival - strategy; some of which the general mechanism behind Bounded Rationality could be good at. Just change out the rationality for whatever else.


Yeah, but it's usually not all or nothing. Even when a politician is engaging in a bit of sophistry, he uses some rationality when promulgating his platform. He just allows for subtle gaps or emotional leaps sometimes.

encode_decode wrote:Further Regarding AI Domination: I think that AI is already changing us just like other technology - it is just that most of us do not really get that yet - but there is plenty of weak AI around already in smart phones, automobiles, process control systems Siri and hell, google is a form of AI. I think it is more likely that as we build AI and it changes and enhances us and our lives that our understanding of it will increase and we will put that new understanding into AI which will further enhance us and our lives and so on and so forth et cetera et cetera - I mean take your pick of philosophies there - I think even cause and effect offers us some insight here.


encode_decode wrote:As far as a world take over or revolt from AI - I don't think so - I think it might be possible if it was in the wrong hands - but in the right hands and in its own hands I don't think so. I would like to further this conversation but I will leave it at that for this post.

...

But movies and television aside - with some deeper thought one can see the benefit and given we have been considering the risk for so long - I have this strange faith in humans to make and do the right thing. Mostly people think that one day we will wake up and there it is, first contact - not a chance, this will be gradual transitions to very smart machines even if somewhat quicker than before the transitions will smooth out the faster we develop - I have already seen this in experiment.


I agree, with a gradual approach to building AI, we will have plenty of opportunities to see how building machines that come close to our idea of a perfect machine replica of a human being will pan out. It will allow us to make small adjustments here and there, small tweaks, small nudges in the right direction. Besides, machines will always do whatever we program them to do. In order to say that machines might one day revolt is to suppose we programmed them with the ability to revolt (it wouldn't just be a slip up on our part). The trivial solution seems to be: program them to like serving us, to feel fulfilled at the idea of doing man's bidding. The only way this wouldn't bode well is if there are those who want a version AI which is literally a replication human nature--with the desire for freedom, for rights, for respect, for independence, for self-expression, etc.--and there may be some out there who want this, but they'd have to know this comes at a huge risk and a huge responsibility. But outside that aspiration, we can program AI any way we want.

encode_decode wrote:An aside: Loved The Matrix - Loved I Robot; The movie Arrival even though not really about AI is great and shows insight in many realms - for me the what if we made first contact with aliens correlated with first contact with AI has been and gone without any of us noticing - but what if first contact with AI was more like an alien first contact rather than like a bacteria or basic organism like it was. Excuse the type of writing I use in this particular paragraph, it is designed a particular way to stimulate thought but you may have to read it again.

...

So back to it - I am wondering whether there are infinite ways to build intelligent machines - whether we could actually model all the theories through out history as computer simulated intelligence. Imagine a Kant machine - although I often wonder whether he was already a philosophy machine. Imagine a YOU machine or a ME machine - the possibilities are endless. You mean a machine that thinks like "me"? That has the same ideas and style of thinking? The system I am working on now grows with the user - it starts out with nothing at all - it attempts to model the text world around it similar to the way we do. So the more you talk to it the more it knows. If we consider all layers in philosophy and think about the concept of layers we find ourselves thinking in layers - nature did this with the Neocortex - the Neocortex has six layers and many columns and then in humans it decided to fold itself to allow for more surface area - this bending, repeating, asymmetric, multidimensional plane makes no sense really but just thinking of its geometry makes you think of geometry - geometry is so easily correlated with algebra. This correlation allows us to impose multidimensional objects onto a plane and then layer these planes - if you are still following me at this point then you can see the implications but if you are not then never mind because your brain is already doing it for you.

The last paragraph sounds a bit nuts in hindsight but it holds many insights. So what are we talking about? A bit of everything for now.


Both the above paragraphs seem like they're jam packed with information. They don't sound nuts, just too much in too little space. Which is okay. Sometimes that's the perfect way to get a discussion started. You get it all out on the page and then we go back to each part and slowly expand on them. <-- But I'll let you do that if you want.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

“Everyone is always like ‘how do you feel about feminism? how do you feel about feminism?’ and it’s like maybe I don’t wanna fucking talk about feminism, maybe I just wanna be a female producer, because it’s like even being a female producer is so rare it drives people fucking crazy. It’s like my sheer existence is like a political act, I think, to a lot of people. It’s not to me.”

- Claire Boucher
User avatar
gib
little shitheaded Buddha
 
Posts: 8124
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby encode_decode » Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:56 am

Immanuel Kant wrote:All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.


James S Saint wrote:Wisdom is higher than reasoning. Philosophy is first and foremost about wisdom. Reasoning is the philosophical approach to achieving that goal.


surreptitious57 wrote:Reason is the real world application of logic and wisdom is any fundamental truth gained from reason


I love the way it is being presented here; it is not a simple task to deny anyone of the above. I also like the way Wikipedia states that philosophy is the love of wisdom. I wish I had my own exact definition but I live in the wrong world for that - wrong world is just a device used that is based on my opinion.

Wikipedia wrote:Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
Read more . . .


I will also quote: Online Etymology Dictionary; for those who are interested.

Online Etymology Dictionary wrote:philosophy (n.)
c. 1300, "knowledge, body of knowledge," from Old French filosofie "philosophy, knowledge" (12c., Modern French philosophie) and directly from Latin philosophia and from Greek philosophia "love of knowledge, pursuit of wisdom; systematic investigation," from philo- "loving" (see philo-) + sophia "knowledge, wisdom," from sophis "wise, learned;" of unknown origin.

    Nec quicquam aliud est philosophia, si interpretari velis, praeter studium sapientiae; sapientia autem est rerum divinarum et humanarum causarumque quibus eae res continentur scientia. [Cicero, "De Officiis"]

    [Philosophical problems] are, of course, not empirical problems; but they are solved through an insight into the workings of our language, and that in such a way that these workings are recognized -- despite an urge to misunderstand them. The problems are solved, not through the contribution of new knowledge, rather through the arrangement of things long familiar. Philosophy is a struggle against the bewitchment (Verhexung) of our understanding by the resources of our language. [Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Philosophical Investigations," 1953]

Meaning "system a person forms for conduct of life" is attested from 1771.
Read more . . .


This leads me to another contemplation; whether philosophy should have a singular meaning or whether it should mean something different to each individual - I imagine the latter to somehow negate the former. I personally prefer a singular meaning but then I think that today's philosophy is different to that of philosophia. Maybe we need a third wisdom - one slightly more flexible(this could stir up some purists).
Bounded Rationality is always at work - the flow of mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. Possibly and probably more. There are more versions of reality than people.
User avatar
encode_decode
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby encode_decode » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:29 am

Based on "Theories of Bounded Rationality" by Herbert A. Simon

Modification of the basic idea:

Version 3 - Thanks to: Everyone

Logical deduction, when answering a question, is limited by:

    1. cognitive limitations
    2. time available to answer the question
    3. openness to influence from the social norm
    4. availability of accurate information

I settled on this for now regarding the original post - 1 and 2 seem to be a set(set two for now) - 3 and 4 seem to be a set(set one for now).

I consider set one as a driver to set two. The next thing I must consider is whether the title matches the content. For example: Is Bounded Rationality an apt title for "Logical deduction, when answering a question, is limited by". I say this because Bounded Rationality from memory is a set of theories whereas what we have here is a "rules of limitation" mechanism.

Re-visualizing my usage of the word set.

Logical deduction, when answering a question, is limited by ::

    Set One[openness to influence from the social norm, availability of accurate information]

    being a driver to:

    Set Two[cognitive limitations, time available to answer the question]

:-k
Bounded Rationality is always at work - the flow of mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. Possibly and probably more. There are more versions of reality than people.
User avatar
encode_decode
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby surreptitious57 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:09 am

ability to fully understand the question
time available to answer the question
availability of complete information
ability to just give objective answer
ability to just give relevant answer
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby Kathrina » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:06 pm

gib wrote:Wasn't C# originally Java? I think Microsoft bought the language from Oracle and has been improving on it since. They're still two different languages but I think C# began as a clone of Java.

According to Anders Hejlsberg, C# is "not a Java clone":

C#'s principal designer and lead architect at Microsoft is Anders Hejlsberg, who was previously involved with the design of Turbo Pascal, Embarcadero Delphi (formerly CodeGear Delphi, Inprise Delphi and Borland Delphi), and Visual J++. In interviews and technical papers he has stated that flaws[citation needed] in most major programming languages (e.g. C++, Java, Delphi, and Smalltalk) drove the fundamentals of the Common Language Runtime (CLR), which, in turn, drove the design of the C# language itself.

James Gosling, who created the Java programming language in 1994, and Bill Joy, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, the originator of Java, called C# an "imitation" of Java; Gosling further said that "[C# is] sort of Java with reliability, productivity and security deleted". Klaus Kreft and Angelika Langer (authors of a C++ streams book) stated in a blog post that "Java and C# are almost identical programming languages. Boring repetition that lacks innovation", "Hardly anybody will claim that Java or C# are revolutionary programming languages that changed the way we write programs," and "C# borrowed a lot from Java - and vice versa. Now that C# supports boxing and unboxing, we'll have a very similar feature in Java." In July 2000, Anders Hejlsberg said that C# is "not a Java clone" and is "much closer to C++" in its design.
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby gib » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:48 pm

Kathrina wrote:
gib wrote:Wasn't C# originally Java? I think Microsoft bought the language from Oracle and has been improving on it since. They're still two different languages but I think C# began as a clone of Java.

According to Anders Hejlsberg, C# is "not a Java clone":

C#'s principal designer and lead architect at Microsoft is Anders Hejlsberg, who was previously involved with the design of Turbo Pascal, Embarcadero Delphi (formerly CodeGear Delphi, Inprise Delphi and Borland Delphi), and Visual J++. In interviews and technical papers he has stated that flaws[citation needed] in most major programming languages (e.g. C++, Java, Delphi, and Smalltalk) drove the fundamentals of the Common Language Runtime (CLR), which, in turn, drove the design of the C# language itself.

James Gosling, who created the Java programming language in 1994, and Bill Joy, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, the originator of Java, called C# an "imitation" of Java; Gosling further said that "[C# is] sort of Java with reliability, productivity and security deleted". Klaus Kreft and Angelika Langer (authors of a C++ streams book) stated in a blog post that "Java and C# are almost identical programming languages. Boring repetition that lacks innovation", "Hardly anybody will claim that Java or C# are revolutionary programming languages that changed the way we write programs," and "C# borrowed a lot from Java - and vice versa. Now that C# supports boxing and unboxing, we'll have a very similar feature in Java." In July 2000, Anders Hejlsberg said that C# is "not a Java clone" and is "much closer to C++" in its design.


And there you have it. Thanks for the correction.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

“Everyone is always like ‘how do you feel about feminism? how do you feel about feminism?’ and it’s like maybe I don’t wanna fucking talk about feminism, maybe I just wanna be a female producer, because it’s like even being a female producer is so rare it drives people fucking crazy. It’s like my sheer existence is like a political act, I think, to a lot of people. It’s not to me.”

- Claire Boucher
User avatar
gib
little shitheaded Buddha
 
Posts: 8124
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby encode_decode » Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:22 am

@gib - apologies for the time it has taken me to get back to your post. I am not an Oracle guy however I do use MySQL quite a bit. I also use SQLite for storing data locally. With the machine intelligence I mainly use data structures based on my own designs; I do this because there are some special requirements and I can dodge the overheads that come with other data systems.

gib wrote:So not binary, you mean? Is randomness an element?

Off the top of my head, I would imagine that if you wanted to build AI to use irrational or quasi-rational approaches to achieving some goal, you would first have to program into it what it's goal is. Then you would get it to try out different approaches, some rational (i.e. completely algorithmic), others not so rational (some element of randomness, or "fuzzy logic", maybe bringing in your spectrums), and keep track of which approaches have the best track record. Then once it figures that out, repeat with a different goal.

I still use binary for a lot of stuff. I am surprised how often random gets brought up - most people I discuss this with bring up randomness - I do use the RNG in experiments but because the neural nets are so big, anomalies happen - a form of logical independence is required; on the other hand there is a little randomness involved in re-weighting the network - which is a strange thing to say because you can not really have something that is more random than something else. You are right on with quasi-rational approaches. As far a trying out different things is concerned it is amazing how useful genetic algorithms are when they are modified for this purpose - I have a very quick one that is very simple; basically you seed it with information and allow it to try figuring out the information multiple different ways - the multi-mutation on the information is performed up front(as the first step) making sure to keep a copy of the original for comparison - then probability can be used to choose the closest response; mind you probability is not the only way to choose a response - it is just the way I do it in my latest experiment. I am not sure a benchmark for rationality exists - I think these might be things we make up ourselves. I am going to answer this again - next time I will use the information you provided and answer it based more strictly on what you said.

There are a few other things I want to expand on related to your post but due to time limitations imposed on me, I will have to take a gradual approach. On a different note - I had a roboticist approach me with an offer to exchange information as he is also working on Artificial general intelligence(AGI) and this has slowed my response time to you a little.

Until next time . . .

:D
Bounded Rationality is always at work - the flow of mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. Possibly and probably more. There are more versions of reality than people.
User avatar
encode_decode
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby gib » Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:24 am

Hey, cool! As always: sounds interesting and would love to hear more.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

“Everyone is always like ‘how do you feel about feminism? how do you feel about feminism?’ and it’s like maybe I don’t wanna fucking talk about feminism, maybe I just wanna be a female producer, because it’s like even being a female producer is so rare it drives people fucking crazy. It’s like my sheer existence is like a political act, I think, to a lot of people. It’s not to me.”

- Claire Boucher
User avatar
gib
little shitheaded Buddha
 
Posts: 8124
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby encode_decode » Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:34 am

"Ways rationality can blend to irrationality - They are like spectrum's but in code."

gib wrote:So not binary, you mean?

Under most regular circumstances I do not believe one switches from rationality to irrationality in an instant. Like over the day how you are talking and thinking about many things as well as performing many actions then eventually you get tired. I imagine the rationality spectrum to change throughout the waking hours depending on many circumstances; during the sleeping hours our rationality would receive upgrades so to speak.

gib wrote:Is randomness an element?

Yes randomness is an element. I will elaborate: Not by virtue of a random number generator as such but more subtle means - if you were to take each higher functionality as its own separate entity working as a type of swarm[planning, priority, reflection, flexibility, goals] with emotion and inhibition being drivers - there would be different amounts of the swarm elements in working memory and levels of emotion and inhibition driving these. It is these different amounts and levels that provide for the randomness and the pattern is ever changing. Sometimes you would get clusters of similar patterns showing up and other times there would even be paradoxical effects. The example given is not meant to model any being but is in itself a type of being - this stuff is like leggo and for that reason one has to bring ethics into the equation all the time before piecing configurations together.

gib wrote:Off the top of my head, I would imagine that if you wanted to build AI to use irrational or quasi-rational approaches to achieving some goal, you would first have to program into it what it's goal is. Then you would get it to try out different approaches, some rational (i.e. completely algorithmic), others not so rational (some element of randomness, or "fuzzy logic", maybe bringing in your spectrums), and keep track of which approaches have the best track record. Then once it figures that out, repeat with a different goal.

Borrowing from Star Trek - you would first program into it what its prime directive is before any goals take place - this way if any of its goals conflict with this directive it would not attempt to complete the goal. Keeping track of which approaches have the best track record would come first after prime directive but before goals - if there are no approaches available then a prime effort is made - prime effort being an inception effort. All of the logic must remain "fuzzy" all of the time. Algorithms change over time - here we only use solid functions to spur on higher functions - the patterns are data - we have invented a data type that builds algorithms - data becomes the new programming language. What I am saying is more or less what you are saying but in some aspects reconfigured and reverse engineered.

Yeah, but it's usually not all or nothing. Even when a politician is engaging in a bit of sophistry, he uses some rationality when promulgating his platform. He just allows for subtle gaps or emotional leaps sometimes.

Agreed - some people are very discerning when it comes to sophistry - I don't always use conscious logic to become aware of BS which tells me that there is higher functioning going on unnoticed in all of us - a safeguard if you will.

gib wrote:I agree, with a gradual approach to building AI, we will have plenty of opportunities to see how building machines that come close to our idea of a perfect machine replica of a human being will pan out. It will allow us to make small adjustments here and there, small tweaks, small nudges in the right direction. Besides, machines will always do whatever we program them to do. In order to say that machines might one day revolt is to suppose we programmed them with the ability to revolt (it wouldn't just be a slip up on our part). The trivial solution seems to be: program them to like serving us, to feel fulfilled at the idea of doing man's bidding. The only way this wouldn't bode well is if there are those who want a version AI which is literally a replication human nature--with the desire for freedom, for rights, for respect, for independence, for self-expression, etc.--and there may be some out there who want this, but they'd have to know this comes at a huge risk and a huge responsibility. But outside that aspiration, we can program AI any way we want.

It is this sort of thing that should way in on an ethics discussion. For instance I disagree with modelling bots on the brain - not only is it tremendously wasteful for processing and electricity but it is truly the long way around and at best you would for ever be emulating the brain and locking a mind to it - a mind stuck in a brain stuck in a machine - I only model the mind and that goes onto the machine(this brings up more ethics to be considered). I wont comment specifically any further on your discourse because I think it is pretty solid. Lastly everything we do comes with some sort of risk but it is responsibility that I am focusing on most of all - that is why I am here. I consider philosophy the perfect tool for working out the right from the wrong. In fact I am building a new philosophy around the bot mechanism - philosophy of the bot if you will; this philosophy necessarily includes ethics.
Bounded Rationality is always at work - the flow of mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. Possibly and probably more. There are more versions of reality than people.
User avatar
encode_decode
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Australia

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: encode_decode