>> I'm still not really satisfied, though, because I would personally >> stop at the stage when the heuristic started to get messy, and say, >> "The problem is starting to become AI-complete, so at this point I >> should include a meta-level search to find a good heuristic for me, >> rather than trying to hard-code one..." > > And at that point, your lab and my lab are essentially starting to do > the same thing. You need to start searching the space of possible > heuristics in a systematic way, rather than just pick a hunch and go > with it. > > The problem, though, is that you might already have gotten yourself into > a You Can't Get There By Starting From Here situation. Suppose your > choice of basic logical formalism, and knowledge representation format > (and the knowledge acquisition methods that MUST come along with that > formalism) has boxed you into a corner in which there does not exist any > choice of heuristic control mechanism that will get your system up into > human-level intelligence territory?
If the underlying search space was sufficiently general, we are OK, there is no way to get boxed in except by the heuristic. This is what the mathematics is good for. An experiment, I think, will not tell you this, since a formalism can cover almost everything but not everything. For example, is a given notation for functions Turing-complete, or merely primitive recursive? Primitive recursion is amazingly expressive, so I think it would be easy to be fooled. But a proof of Turing-completeness will suffice. ------------------------------------------- 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=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
