Answers.Body: <p>It's impossible to give a definitive 'yes' answer to your question, since that would require proving that alternatives <em>cannot</em> exist.</p>
  
  <p>More philosophically, it depends on what you mean by "preference over world states":</p>
  
  <p>However counter-intuitive it might seem, it is conceivably possible to create Strong AI purely from local condition-action rules, in which there is no global concept of 'preference value' and/or no integrated notion of 'world state'.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-12T20:04:20.157Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-08-12T20:04:20.157Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: NietzscheanAI
Answers.Body: <p>Simply put, we don't know how to create Strong Artificial Intelligence yet, so we don't know what is or isn't required to create it.  At best we can engage in "informed speculation", in which case I'd say that the answer is more likely "yes" than "no".  But that's basically just a hunch.</p>
  
  <p>If you're interested in a pretty good overview of what "pieces" might be required to create Strong AI, and if you haven't read it yet, <a href="http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~pedrod/" rel="nofollow">Pedro Domingos</a>' book <em>The Master Algorithm</em> might be of interest. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-12T21:31:07.827Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-08-12T21:39:28.547Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2016-08-12T21:39:28.547Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: mindcrime
Answers.Body: <p><strong>Introspect</strong>! Do you need to know what's good/bad, pleasurable/painful or so, in order to understand and/or learn?</p>
  
  <p>I am a human, hence a general intelligence, and so are you. So know thyself! I can tell for myself that I have different ways to understand and learn; some may be similar to reinforcement learning. Esp. the ~automatic ~innate ~unconcious ones, like motor movement, remembering tasty food and many other primitive functions. </p>
  
  <p><strong>But</strong> I can also understand things through ~intentional ~analytical ~logical thought; which some may call pure reason (Immanuel Kant). </p>
  
  <p>Yet, you don't need to hear all that, since have it already in your own mind. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-11-08T15:12:42.073Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-11-08T15:12:42.073Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: EssenceBlue
Answers.Body: <p>Simply yes, but it can lead to over fixing of the NN.</p>
  
  <p>Humans favour not dying, which is only realised once a consequence is defined for the system to realise that death is an unfavorable result. Which can be train vai observation. Allow your system to observe between 2 or more separate people/systems. Then allow opportunity to test in a safe environment with the pre  existing info of the consequences that may follow, provind that if the system makes a mistake in the test/safe environment it will be saved  unknownly and then informed that it made a mistake, the place system in an unsafe world in same conditions, informing it that if something happens it will die. That is the way humans grow up, and we've lasted very long with this technic.</p>
  
  <p>I'm an AI Researcher and Software Engineer for the past 7 years.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-12T17:41:01.417Z
Answers.Text: Thanks for your answer. I don't doubt the power of reinforcement learning. Could you elaborate on AI that doesn't use reinforcement learning?
Answers.UserDisplayName: bpachev
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-12T20:25:32.233Z
Answers.Text: Learning is a trial and error application. Unless you provide an acurate dataset for the AI, and the applicable environment for it to apply this information. This would be a closed system and would allow the AI not to in anyway harm itself, a good example is a user tracking AI or a chat  bot, neither can be damaged, if provided with enough information that learning would not be needed anymore, it could just understand and implement/act to this new data but not learn from it as it has enough to exist as a closed system
Answers.UserDisplayName: X3R0
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-12T16:52:44.237Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-08-12T17:00:25.150Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2016-08-12T17:00:25.150Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: X3R0
Body: <p>By reinforcement learning, I don't mean the class of machine learning algorithms such as DeepQ, etc. I have in mind the general concept of learning based on rewards and punishment.</p>
  <p>Is it possible to create a Strong AI that does not rely on learning by reinforcement, or is reinforcement learning a requirement for artificial intelligence?</p>
  <p>The existence of rewards and punishment implies the existence of favorable and unfavorable world-states. Must intelligence in general and artificial intelligence, in particular, have a way of classifying world-states as favorable or unfavorable?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-07T10:05:36.590Z
Comments.Text: [Here](https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/17084/2444) is a related/similar question.
Comments.UserDisplayName: nbro
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-09T14:27:45.193Z
Comments.Text: Your last question asks a different question, "... have a value system?" which is a lot different from reinforcement learning.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Pimgd
Tags: <reinforcement-learning><philosophy><agi>
Title: Is reinforcement learning needed to create Strong AI?
UserDisplayName: bpachev
ThreadText: # Is reinforcement learning needed to create Strong AI?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-08-08)
  
  By reinforcement learning, I don't mean the class of machine learning algorithms such as DeepQ, etc. I have in mind the general concept of learning based on rewards and punishment.
  
  Is it possible to create a Strong AI that does not rely on learning by reinforcement, or is reinforcement learning a requirement for artificial intelligence?
  
  The existence of rewards and punishment implies the existence of favorable and unfavorable world-states. Must intelligence in general and artificial intelligence, in particular, have a way of classifying world-states as favorable or unfavorable?
  
  **Tags:** reinforcement-learning, philosophy, agi
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: Your last question asks a different question, "... have a value system?" which is a lot different from reinforcement learning.  
  > **username_1**: [Here](https://ai.stackexchange.com/q/17084/2444) is a related/similar question.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2016-08-12. Score: 1 | Accepted answer
  
  It's impossible to give a definitive 'yes' answer to your question, since that would require proving that alternatives *cannot* exist.
  
  More philosophically, it depends on what you mean by "preference over world states":
  
  However counter-intuitive it might seem, it is conceivably possible to create Strong AI purely from local condition-action rules, in which there is no global concept of 'preference value' and/or no integrated notion of 'world state'.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2016-08-12. Score: 1
  
  Simply put, we don't know how to create Strong Artificial Intelligence yet, so we don't know what is or isn't required to create it. At best we can engage in "informed speculation", in which case I'd say that the answer is more likely "yes" than "no". But that's basically just a hunch.
  
  If you're interested in a pretty good overview of what "pieces" might be required to create Strong AI, and if you haven't read it yet, [Pedro Domingos](http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~pedrod/)' book *The Master Algorithm* might be of interest.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2018-11-08. Score: 0
  
  **Introspect**! Do you need to know what's good/bad, pleasurable/painful or so, in order to understand and/or learn?
  
  I am a human, hence a general intelligence, and so are you. So know thyself! I can tell for myself that I have different ways to understand and learn; some may be similar to reinforcement learning. Esp. the ~automatic ~innate ~unconcious ones, like motor movement, remembering tasty food and many other primitive functions.
  
  **But** I can also understand things through ~intentional ~analytical ~logical thought; which some may call pure reason (Immanuel Kant).
  
  Yet, you don't need to hear all that, since have it already in your own mind.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2016-08-12. Score: 0
  
  Simply yes, but it can lead to over fixing of the NN.
  
  Humans favour not dying, which is only realised once a consequence is defined for the system to realise that death is an unfavorable result. Which can be train vai observation. Allow your system to observe between 2 or more separate people/systems. Then allow opportunity to test in a safe environment with the pre existing info of the consequences that may follow, provind that if the system makes a mistake in the test/safe environment it will be saved unknownly and then informed that it made a mistake, the place system in an unsafe world in same conditions, informing it that if something happens it will die. That is the way humans grow up, and we've lasted very long with this technic.
  
  I'm an AI Researcher and Software Engineer for the past 7 years.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks for your answer. I don't doubt the power of reinforcement learning. Could you elaborate on AI that doesn't use reinforcement learning?  
  > **username_6**: Learning is a trial and error application. Unless you provide an acurate dataset for the AI, and the applicable environment for it to apply this information. This would be a closed system and would allow the AI not to in anyway harm itself, a good example is a user tracking AI or a chat  bot, neither can be damaged, if provided with enough information that learning would not be needed anymore, it could just understand and implement/act to this new data but not learn from it as it has enough to exist as a closed system  
  
  ---
  
  