Not only is each movie different for each person, it is different each time one person sees it. The movie itself is different from the movie-witnessing experience, and there seems to be a feeling that you could compress it by just grabbing the inner experience. But you notice different things each time. And more often than just trying to take away the factual bits of what happened, in any situation we are much more interesting in extracting the "meaning" than teh simple fact about what just happened. The implications, the point of any particular action. Even in speech, we aren't trying to remember sounds, but which actual word-sound-meaning unit was intended, since it is always ambiguous.
And the "narrative" nature of knowledge I think was mentioned, and I think it's helpful to point out a part of narrative that is often neglected. A narrative is a chronologically ordered telling of a situation that has some moral or point. This moral or point is an important part of the meaning, just as the is the factual content, but it is not nearly so absolutely or clearly defined. Very often, if not mostly at least for TV shows, the moral is just that good triumphs over evil. But if you leave it out in a story, people find themselves not caring and thus not remembering. andi On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:24:51 +0200, Kingma, D.P. wrote > [Spelling corrected and reworded...] > > I'm not convinced by this reasoning. First, the way individuals store audiovisual information differs, simply because of slight differences in brain development (nurture). Also, memory is condensed information about the actual high-level sensory/experience information. The actual 45kb memory of a movie is therefore quite personal to the subject. Recall of a photo/video is more like an impressionistic painting then an actual photo. > > An AGI that reconstructs a movie from 45kb human-ish compressed memory will have to make up 99.99% of video and audio. A very educated guess, but still a guess. > > Compare it with an extremely talented photorealistic animator human that, purely from memory, creates a reconstruction of a scene from The Matrix. Wouldn't you notice the difference in experience? > > On 4/18/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/17/07, James Ratcliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > A simple list, or set of goals for an AGI to accomplish reasonably I would > > find very useful, and something to work for. > > I think an important goal is to solve the user interface problem. The > current > approach is for the computer to present a menu of choices (e.g. a set of > icons, or automated voicemail "press or say 'one'"), which is hardly > satisfactory. An interface should be more like Google. I tell the computer > what I want and it gets it for me. > > In http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/rationale.html I argue the > equivalence of text compression with AI. I would therefore set a goal of > matching humans at text prediction (about 1 bit per character). Humans use > vast knowledge and reasoning to predict strings like "All men are mortal. > Socrates is a man. Therefore ____". An AGI should be able to make > predictions as accurately as humans given only a 1 GB corpus of text, about > what a human could read in 20+ years. > > I would go further and include lossy compression tests. In theory, you could > compress speech to 10 bits per second by converting it to text and using text > compression. The rate at which the human brain can remember video is not > much > greater, probably less than 50 bps*. Therefore, as a goal, an AGI ought to > be > able to compress a 2 hour movie to a 45 KB file, such that when a person > views > the original and reconstructed movie on consecutive days (not side by side), > the viewer will not notice any differences. It should be able to do this > after training on 20 years of video. > > The purpose of this goal is that such an AGI could also perform useful tasks > such as reduce a video to a verbal description understandable by humans, or > given a script, produce a movie. These tasks would be trivial extensions of > the compression process, which would probably consist of describing a movie > using text and augmenting with some nonverbal data such as descriptions of > faces and voices in terms that humans cannot easily express. > > *50 bps is probably high. Tests of image recall by Standing [1] suggest that > a picture viewed for 5 seconds is worth about 30 bits. > > [1] Standing, L. (1973), "Learning 10,000 Pictures", Quarterly Journal of > Experimental Psychology (25) pp. 207-222. > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- > 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/?&; > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/?&; ----- 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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
