Jef, The paper cited below is more relevant to Kolmogorov complexity than Solomonoff induction. I had thought about the use of subroutines before I wrote my questioning critique of Solomonoff Induction.
Nothing in it seems to deal with the fact that the descriptive length of realitys computations that create an event (the descriptive length that is more likely to affect the events probability), is not necessarily correlated with the descriptive length of sensations we receive from such events. Nor is it clear that it deals with the fact that much of the frequency data a world-sensing brain derives its probabilities from is full of non-literal similarity, meaning that non-literal matching is a key component of any capable AGI. It does not indicate how the complexity of that non-literal matching, at the sensation, rather than the reality generating level, is to be dealt which by Solomonoff Indicution, is it part of the complexity involved in its hypothesis (or semi-measurs) or not, and to what if any extent should it be? With regard to the paper you cited I disagree with its statement that the measure of the complexity of a program written using a library should be the size of the program and the size of the library is uses. Presumably this was a mis-statement, because it would make all but the very largest programs that used the same vast library relatively close in size, regardless of the relative complexity of what they do. I assume it really should be the length of the program plus only each of the library routines it actually uses, independent of how many times it uses them. Anything else would mean that To make this discussion relevant to practical AGI, lets assume the program from which Kolmogorov complexity is computed is a Novamente-class machine up and running with world knowledge in say five to ten years. Assume the system has compositional and generalizational hierarchies providing it with the representational efficiencies Jeff Hawkins describes for hierarchical memory. In such a system much of what determines what happens lies in its knowledge base, I assume the length of any knowledge base components used would also have to be counted in the Kolmogorov complexity. But would one only count the knowledge structures actually found to match, or also the ones that were match candidates, but lost out, when calculating such complexity? Any ideas? Ed Porter -----Original Message----- From: Jef Allbright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:56 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] How valuable is Solmononoff Induction for real world AGI? I recently found this paper to contain some thinking worthwhile to the considerations in this thread. <http://lcsd05.cs.tamu.edu/papers/veldhuizen.pdf> - Jef ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=62919265-6d3337
