I had said: > But this means that you are > advancing a purely speculative theory without any evidence to support > it.
Matt said: The evidence is described in my paper which you haven't read yet. -------------------------------------------- I did glance at the paper and I don't think I will be able to understand your evidence. Can you give me some clues using plain language. ----------------- Matt said: For building AGI, my proposal is http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi.html Unfortunately, I estimate the cost to be US $1 quadrillion over the next 30 years. But I believe it is coming, because AGI is worth that much. If I use compression anywhere, it will be to evaluate candidate language models for peers in a market that right now does not yet exist. --------------------------------------------- Can you explain what you mean by the statement that you would use compression to evaluate candidate language models? ---------------- I had said: > Right now I am working on my own religious journey (but mine is > seriously religious interestingly enough) writing a polynomial time SAT > program. Matt said: It is worth $1 million if you succeed, but I wouldn't waste my time on it. http://www.claymath.org/millennium/P_vs_NP/ --------------------------------------------- I had given up on it as a waste of time, but I decided to look more carefully at it on what I considered the slight possibility that the Lord had actually indicated that I would be able to do it. I have evidence now that I did not have 7 months ago that it may actually work. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
