**From:** Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (*sentience@pobox.com*)

**Date:** Wed Jan 30 2002 - 22:14:12 MST

**Next message:**Lee Daniel Crocker: "Re: Ashcroft Antics"**Previous message:**Spike Jones: "Re: CLIMATE: Cooling, not warming..."**In reply to:**Phil Osborn: "Re: The Quest for the Purpose of Life"**Next in thread:**Chen Yixiong, Eric: "Re: The Quest for the Purpose of Life"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Phil Osborn wrote:

*>
*

*> There had to be something more. Calculus gave me an insight. Suppose we looked at the convergence in terms of derivatives. The first derivative of convergence - the velocity - might be constantly or mostly positive over time, but if it averaged to a finite limit, then we would hit that boredom phase.
*

*>
*

*> One candy bar is great. The second is good. The fifteenth or one-thousanth incremental candy bar is barely noticed.
*

*>
*

*> But what if ALL the derivatives are positive? I.e., not just velocity, but acceleration, acceleration of acceleration1, ... to acceleration of acceleration(n), where n is infinite. The degree of positiveness doesn't matter. An infinitesimal will do.
*

*>
*

*> The question then becomes, if we assume that the above is fundamentally correct, under what circumstances would we be able to make all the derivatives positive? If this is impossible, then why try living forever?
*

An exponential function, e^x, trivially satisfies the above requirement.

I don't see why e^x is inherently more fun than x^2, since I would deny

the idea that we become "bored" with derivatives, derivatives of

derivatives, and so on. Singularity Fun Theory says that we become bored

with repetition. There is no inherent reason why e^x would be seen as

less predictable than x^2; they are both functions of roughly the same

complexity.

In Singularity Fun Theory, it's the *content* of the space, not the size

of the space, that determines the amount of "fun" - in other words, as

long as you haven't exhausted the Fun Space for that size limit, you can

go on having fun within limit N. Eventually you must exhaust a Fun Space

of any finite size, and the more intelligent you are, the faster a given

volume of Fun Space will be exhausted (because of your ability to

generalize better). Singularity Fun Theory says, don't worry, the volume

of Fun Space you can understand also gets bigger with intelligence.

Anyway my point is that if you generalize *on the level of the pleasure

counter*, then you'll get bored with a pleasure function of e^x just as

fast as x^2; both are functions that a cognitive system would learn to

predict. Singularity Fun Theory's answer is to exempt this level from

antisphexishness routines, along with the ultimate lowest level of the

system where it's all ones and zeroes, for the same reason in both cases;

there doesn't seem to be even the theoretical possibility of avoiding

"repetition".

If you did want to avoid repetition on the level of the pleasure counter

itself, the best approximation would be to use the busy beaver function,

not an exponential function. The busy beaver function for N being the

largest number of tape marks produceable by a halting Turing machine with

N or fewer states, and hence, a number that "forces" an ascent to the next

level of complexity in order to understand it. And that is a level of

ascending resource requirements that even ontotechnology would be hard-put

to supply.

Busy beaver for small values:

BB(1) = 1

BB(2) = 4

BB(3) = 6

BB(4) = 13

BB(5) >= 4098

BB(6) >= 1.29*10^865

-- -- -- -- --

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/

Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

**Next message:**Lee Daniel Crocker: "Re: Ashcroft Antics"**Previous message:**Spike Jones: "Re: CLIMATE: Cooling, not warming..."**In reply to:**Phil Osborn: "Re: The Quest for the Purpose of Life"**Next in thread:**Chen Yixiong, Eric: "Re: The Quest for the Purpose of Life"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:37 MST
*