Vladimir said> > I pointed out only that it doesn't follow from AIXI that
ad-hoc is justified.
Matt used a chain of logic that went as follows:
AIXI says that a perfect solution is not computable. However, a very
general principle of both scientific research and machine learning is
to favor simple hypotheses over complex ones. AIXI justifies these
> practices in a formal way. It also says we can stop looking for a
universal
solution, which I think is important. It justifies our current ad-hoc
approach to problem solving -- we have no choice.
Or, in summary, ad hoc is justified because we have no choice.
You claimed that we had a choice *BECAUSE* optimal approximation is an
alternative to ad hoc.
I then asked
So what is an optimal approximation under uncertainty? How do you know
when
you've gotten there?
and said:
If you don't believe in ad-hoc then you must have an algorithmic solution
.
You are now apparently declining to provide an algorithmic solution without
arguing that not doing so is a disproof of your statement.
Or, in other words, you are declining to prove that Matt is incorrect in
saying that we have no choice -- You're just simply repeating your
insistence that your now-unsupported point is valid.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
