analiza aiqbench
This paper addresses a critical logical flaw in Non-Axiomatic Logic (NAL) where standard notation conflates avoiding an event with pursuing its negation, potentially causing systems to act paradoxically. By formally defining "anti-goals" and introducing a distinct prevention operator, the authors resolve this ambiguity to better model active avoidance versus passive withholding of action. This advancement strengthens the theoretical foundation for adaptive AI agents operating under uncertainty where resource constraints are common.
Anti-Goal Reasoning: Rethinking the Theory of Goal Reasoning in Non-Axiomatic Logic
arXiv:2607.20902v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Goal reasoning in Non-Axiomatic Logic (NAL) explains how an adaptive system derives means for realizing desired events under insufficient knowledge and resources. However, the representation of avoidance is less clear. A common convention is to express ``avoid $G$'' as the goal sentence ``$\neg G!$'', but this notation conflates two different readings: pursuing the negated event $\neg G$, and avoiding the positive event $G$. This paper shows that the conflation can produce a paradoxical case in which an avoidance intention is converted into a positive goal to act merely because acting is usually followed by the absence of hurt. Starting from NAL's basic definition of goals, the framework is extended with a corresponding definition of anti-goals, so that avoidance can be represented without treating it as the pursuit of a negated event. Finally, a mental operation, $\op{prevent}$, is introduced to connect anti-goal reasoning with ordinary goal reasoning in cases of active prevention. Four minimal case studies check that the resulting rules distinguish pursuit, passive avoidance, active prevention, and withholding action to preserve a desired event.
Abstract:Goal reasoning in Non-Axiomatic Logic (NAL) explains how an adaptive system derives means for realizing desired events under insufficient knowledge and resources. However, the representation of avoidance is less clear. A common convention is to express ``avoid $G$'' as the goal sentence ``$\neg G!$'', but this notation conflates two different readings: pursuing the negated event $\neg G$, and avoiding the positive event $G$. This paper shows that the conflation can produce a paradoxical case in which an avoidance intention is converted into a positive goal to act merely because acting is usually followed by the absence of hurt. Starting from NAL's basic definition of goals, the framework is extended with a corresponding definition of anti-goals, so that avoidance can be represented without treating it as the pursuit of a negated event. Finally, a mental operation, $\op{prevent}$, is introduced to connect anti-goal reasoning with ordinary goal reasoning in cases of active prevention. Four minimal case studies check that the resulting rules distinguish pursuit, passive avoidance, active prevention, and withholding action to preserve a desired event.
Logic in Computer Science (cs.LO); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.20902 [cs.LO]
(or arXiv:2607.20902v1 [cs.LO] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.20902 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 273 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Benn Jordan on Flock, privacy, and the new surveillance backlash
The Verge · 15 oct. 2026

Academia is for Ambition — Alex Zhang, MIT
Latent Space · 2 oct. 2026

Listening Disorders as Eating Disorders
LessWrong · 29 sept. 2026

What can language models teach us about understanding?
LessWrong · 9 oct. 2026