Furthermore we learned in class recently about a case where a person was literally born with only half a brain, dont have that story but here is one: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/story?id=1951748&page=1
I think all the talk about hard numbers is really off base unfortunatly and AI shouldnt be held to those kind of rigid standards, as we really dont know the minimum information required, and considering we will most likely have tons and tons of redundant information, we will have much much more than whatever amount is quoted, and will not know the magic number until it happens. The point of it is the actual structure, and usage of the knowledge. Talking about knowledge in the raw has no real use. My AI already has access to over 600 recent novels, but unfortunatly is not AGI. Now, I personally, "understand/comprehend" ALL the novels. Its pretty simple. Do I 'know' or have 'memorized' all the novels? No. But there is no reason a human cant "comprehend much greater than 10^9 bits". Your terminology really must be tightened up if you are to make a distinct strong point. I have read nearly 1000 novels, and understood most of what I read. Now if it was "comprehend much greater than 10^9 bits of structured non-repeated knowledge" it may be true that humans can not understand that. But, then again, wait, if it is structured, then it has form and patterns that can be manipulated, anything that has a pattern, makes it easier to 'know' or understand these things. James Ratcliff Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: > I will try to answer several posts here. I said that the knowledge > base of an AGI must be opaque because it has 10^9 bits of information, > which is more than a person can comprehend. By opaque, I mean that you > can't do any better by examining or modifying the internal > representation than you could by examining or modifying the training > data. For a text based AI with natural language ability, the 10^9 bits > of training data would be about a gigabyte of text, about 1000 books. Of > course you can sample it, add to it, edit it, search it, run various > tests on it, and so on. What you can't do is read, write, or know all of > it. There is no internal representation that you could convert it to > that would allow you to do these things, because you still have 10^9 > bits of information. It is a limitation of the human brain that it can't > store more information than this. "Understanding" 10^9 bits of information is not the same as storing 10^9 bits of information. A typical painting in the Louvre might be 1 meter on a side. At roughly 16 pixels per millimeter, and a perceivable color depth of about 20 bits that would be about 10^8 bits. If an art specialist knew all about, say, 1000 paintings in the Louvre, that specialist would "understand" a total of about 10^11 bits. You might be inclined to say that not all of those bits count, that many are redundant to "understanding". Exactly. People can easily comprehend 10^9 bits. It makes no sense to argue about degree of comprehension by quoting numbers of bits. Richard Loosemore ----- 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/?list_id=303 _______________________________________ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com New Torrent Site, Has TV and Movie Downloads! http://www.falazar.com/projects/Torrents/tvtorrents_show.php --------------------------------- Sponsored Link Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $310,000 Mortgage for $999/mo - Calculate new house payment ----- 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/?list_id=303
