On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Tim Tyler via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26/11/2014 19:03, Ben Goertzel via AGI wrote: >> What's less clear is whether it's productive to view predictive as >> **the core** cognitive functionality of human-level intelligence, as >> Jeff Hawkins and others have suggested
You have 10^9 bits of knowledge programmed by evolution and another 10^9 bits learned from your environment after birth. The evolved knowledge took 10^8 times longer to learn (3 billion years vs. 30 years). Contrast this with text compression on the same scale for the top ranked programs from http://mattmahoney.net/dc/text.html About 99.9% of the knowledge is learned after birth (the size of the compressed file) and 0.1% by the evolution of the software (the size of the decompression program). The evolved knowledge took 10^4 to 10^5 times longer to learn than the statistical knowledge (years vs. hours). I am intimately familiar with the process of developing data compression software. It is an iterative process. You think you have a good idea of what changes ought to improve compression. But then you do the experiment and you are right maybe less than half of the time. Even if you are a fast coder, you can see that development time is limited by the CPU power available to do the tests and gain a couple bits of knowledge. Optimal text compression implies passing the Turing test. But this experiment (now 8.5 years old) suggests we are a very very long way from optimizing the code. -- -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ------------------------------------------- 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
