From: Ari Gesher To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Re: MDF Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:37:50 +0000 The adaptive adversaries in the immune system context are parasites. I wrote a piece using biological parasites as a strong analogy for the problems cyber security (which also goes into the need to use side-channels to find and stop adaptive adversaries). The immune system does a horrible job of dealing with parasites (definitionally) and can be seen to be just like standard pattern-matching/data mining/statistical approaches as a defense mechanism - they're really good at stopping what they've seen before and pretty bad at stopping novel attacks. The self-recognition piece is interesting, though. On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:26 PM, Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> wrote: I think the immune system might provide useful insights . Recognizing self, attacking everything that is not self On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Ari Gesher wrote: On Oct 23, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Joscha Bach <1 > wrote: That being said, AGI will have trouble succeeding because it is following the scruffy tradition. Perhaps the main failing of this tradition is its refusal to define objective (and preferably quantitative) measures of success. The question of good benchmark tasks is haunting Al since its inception. Usually, when we identify a task that requires intelligence in humans (playing chess or soccer or Jeopardy, driving a car etc.) we end up with a kind of very smart (chess-playing, car-driving) toaster. That being said, Al was always very fruitful in the sense that it arguably was the most productive and useful field of computer science, even if it fell short of its lofty goals. Without a commitment to understanding intelligence and mind itself, Al as a discipline may be doomed, because it will lose the cohesion and direction of a common goal. So now this gets interesting and starts to point us towards both MDF and the study of deception. The smart toas