Eliezer> unless P != NP and the concepts are genuinely encrypted. And
I am of course assuming P != NP, which seems to me a safe assumption. If P = NP, and mind exploits that fact (which I don't believe) then we are at a serious handicap in producing an AGI till we understand why P = NP, but it will become a lot easier afterward! I'm not, of course, saying that there was some "intent" or evolutionary advantage to encryption, just that it very naturally occurs. Evolution picks a grammar bias, for example. One is as good as another, more or less, so it picks one. The AGI doesn't get the privilege, though, it has to solve a learning problem, and such learning problems are mostly known to be NP-hard. (We might, of course, give it the grammar bias, rather than requiring it to learn it, but alas, we don't know how to describe it... linguists study this problem, but it has been too hard to solve...) So Pei's comments are in some sense wishes. To be charitable-- maybe I should say beliefs supported by his experience. But they are not established facts. It remains a possibility, supported by reasonable evidence, that language learning may be an intractable additional step on top of building a program achieving other aspects of intelligence. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
