Lecture: FROM CONSTRUCTIONIST TO CONSTRUCTIVIST AI: ARCHITECTURE MATTERS
Author: Kristinn R. Thórisson
1. If constructionist methodologies are sufficient, how do we create a complex architecture (by hand) that: - can learn to act successfully in not only one but multiple - unforeseen - environments? - can learn novel things, even invent new (useful) things? 2. If constructivist methodologies are a necessity for achieving AGI, how do we build a complex architecture that: - can learn to act successfully in not only one but multiple - unforeseen - environments? - can learn novel things, even invent new (useful) things?
Gudny R. Jonsdottir, IIIM, Iceland
John-Jules Meyer, U. of Utrecht, the Netherlands
Marjan Sirjani, Reykjavik U.
Ricardo Sanz, U. Madrid
Pei Wang, Temple U., USA
Helgi Páll Helgason, Reykjavik U.
Mark Wernsdorfer, U. Bamberg, Germany
Yngvi Björnsson, Reykjavik U.
Team Conclusions: Architecture might be interpreted in two different ways in the constructivist context. For example, there are two different architectures in NARS: structure of system knowledge - which will eventually decide how the system works.The first is completely built by the system itself: Self organizing conceptual network. The software architecture (meta-level) completely hand coded in NARS. The constructivist classification/boundary is not so clear cut. Is modifying own source code a requirement for being constructivist? What is the limit to how far you can go in the constructivist direction while only modifying data and not code?
There is a strong relationship between constructivist and meta-control. Our environment is a hierarchy of wholes and parts. Very difficult to recover if you change your source code in the wrong way. The new methodology is that you don’t provide production rules, you want the system to generate them itself. At which levels of description should self-programming be allowed?
Is source code and operational knowledge the same phenomenon in the constructivist case?
Pei also stressed the importance of seperating executable objects from data.
Hannes Högni Vilhjalmsson, Reykjavik U.
Deon Garrett, IIIM, Iceland
Haris Dindo, U. Palermo, Italy
Jörg Siekman, DFKI, Germany
Team Conclusions: The first question is a rhetoric one! Of course you need general methods to build complex systems! But: we will shortly have complex structures resembling that of the brain in terms of number of nodes and interconnections (e.g. internet), the question is how are they organized to produce something intelligent?! What about projecting the Constructivist methodology forward: we are maybe not ready yet to build general intelligence. Take the analogy with humans creating first computers that are now creating more powerful computers out of human reach: recursive constructivist. Design intelligence vs. intelligent design!
Eric Baum, USA
Antonio Chella, U. Palermo, Italy
Bas Steunebrink, IDSIA, Switzerland
Hamid Pourvatan, IIIM, Iceland
Hrafn Th. Thorisson, IIIM, Iceland
Anna Ingolfsdottir, Reykjavik U.
Eric Nivel, Reykjavik U.
Kristinn R. Thórisson, Reykjavik U. / IIIM, Iceland
James Bonaiuto, Cal Tech, USA