> -----Original Message----- > From: Aaron Hosford [mailto:[email protected]] > > > What language are we talking about? C++? Lisp? The "language" of physical > reality? Physical reality seems the most natural "language", but there are > many different ways to encode the same behavior in a physical system. (Take > quasiparticles, for example.) Even if we could say that the human brain has > found a local optimum in the space of descriptions available in physical > reality's "language" (a dubious claim), there is nothing to say that there isn't > a significantly more concise globally optimal description available. >
I think we're assuming any generally sufficient language for this discussion, one that kind of works efficiently, without needing to encode any exploding combinatorial complexity. > This, of course, says nothing about the difficulty in actually finding such an > encoding. I think we're best off assuming we have no idea whatsoever how > complex GI really is, or how hard it would be to match or one-up the one > known (and poorly understood) example encoding we have, outside of direct > simulation. GI K-complexity is correlated to available OPS in an environment and available memory and metrics including computational and communication topology. More OPS and memory less k-complexity. Though as OPS scale up the complexity probably goes through various thresholds and asymptotes at a lower bound. Though it depends on the full specific technical formula of this theoretical AGI instance. Where is the AGI along the computational engine scale of compudynamic power and efficiency. How many Goertzels does it have :) How many Goertzels per watt can it put out hehe. John ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
