The same goes for inference. There is no silver bullet method that is completely general and can infer anything. There is no general inference method. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. That is the nature of the complex world we live in. My current theory is that the more we try to find a single silver bullet, the more we will just break against the fact that none exists.
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 11:35 AM, David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> wrote: > Although I haven't studied Solomonoff induction yet, although I plan to > read up on it, I've realized that people seem to be making the same mistake > I was. People are trying to find one silver bullet method of induction or > learning that works for everything. I've begun to realize that its OK if > something doesn't work for everything. As long as it works on a large enough > subset of problems to be useful. If you can figure out how to construct > justifiable methods of induction for enough problems that you need to solve, > then that is sufficient for AGI. > > This is the same mistake I made and it was the point I was trying to make > in the recent email I sent. I kept trying to come up with algorithms for > doing things and I could always find a test case to break it. So, now I've > begun to realize that it's ok if it breaks sometimes! The question is, can > you define an algorithm that breaks gracefully and which can figure out what > problems it can be applied to and what problems it should not be applied to. > If you can do that, then you can solve the problems where it is applicable, > and avoid the problems where it is not. > > This is perfectly OK! You don't have to find a silver bullet method of > induction or inference that works for everything! > > Dave > > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org> wrote: > >> >> To make this discussion more concrete, please look at >> >> http://www.vetta.org/documents/disSol.pdf >> >> Section 2.5 gives a simple version of the proof that Solomonoff induction >> is a powerful learning algorithm in principle, and Section 2.6 explains why >> it is not practically useful. >> >> What part of that paper do you think is wrong? >> >> thx >> ben >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org> wrote: >>> >>> If you're going to argue against a mathematical theorem, your argument >>> must be mathematical not verbal. Please explain one of >>> >>> 1) which step in the proof about Solomonoff induction's effectiveness you >>> believe is in error >>> >>> 2) which of the assumptions of this proof you think is inapplicable to >>> real intelligence [apart from the assumption of infinite or massive compute >>> resources] >>> -------------------------------- >>> >>> Solomonoff Induction is not a provable Theorem, it is therefore a >>> conjecture. It cannot be computed, it cannot be verified. There are many >>> mathematical theorems that require the use of limits to "prove" them for >>> example, and I accept those proofs. (Some people might not.) But there is >>> no evidence that Solmonoff Induction would tend toward some limits. Now >>> maybe the conjectured abstraction can be verified through some other means, >>> but I have yet to see an adequate explanation of that in any terms. The >>> idea that I have to answer your challenges using only the terms you specify >>> is noise. >>> >>> Look at 2. What does that say about your "Theorem". >>> >>> I am working on 1 but I just said: "I haven't yet been able to find a way >>> that could be used to prove that Solomonoff Induction does not do what Matt >>> claims it does." >>> Z >>> What is not clear is that no one has objected to my characterization of >>> the conjecture as I have been able to work it out for myself. It requires >>> an infinite set of infinitely computed probabilities of each infinite >>> "string". If this characterization is correct, then Matt has been using the >>> term "string" ambiguously. As a primary sample space: A particular string. >>> And as a compound sample space: All the possible individual cases of the >>> substring compounded into one. No one has yet to tell of his "mathematical" >>> experiments of using a Turing simulator to see what a finite iteration of >>> all possible programs of a given length would actually look like. >>> >>> I will finish this later. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Abram, >>>>> Solomoff Induction would produce poor "predictions" if it could be used >>>>> to compute them. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Solomonoff induction is a mathematical, not verbal, construct. Based on >>>> the most obvious mapping from the verbal terms you've used above into >>>> mathematical definitions in terms of which Solomonoff induction is >>>> constructed, the above statement of yours is FALSE. >>>> >>>> If you're going to argue against a mathematical theorem, your argument >>>> must be mathematical not verbal. Please explain one of >>>> >>>> 1) which step in the proof about Solomonoff induction's effectiveness >>>> you believe is in error >>>> >>>> 2) which of the assumptions of this proof you think is inapplicable to >>>> real intelligence [apart from the assumption of infinite or massive compute >>>> resources] >>>> >>>> Otherwise, your statement is in the same category as the statement by >>>> the protagonist of Dostoesvky's "Notes from the Underground" -- >>>> >>>> "I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we >>>> are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a >>>> very >>>> charming thing too." >>>> >>>> ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Secondly, since it cannot be computed it is useless. Third, it is not >>>>> the sort of thing that is useful for AGI in the first place. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with these two statements >>>> >>>> -- ben G >>>> >>>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >>>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com/> >>>> >>> >>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com/> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ben Goertzel, PhD >> CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC >> CTO, Genescient Corp >> Vice Chairman, Humanity+ >> Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute >> External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China >> b...@goertzel.org >> >> " >> “When nothing seems to help, I go look at a stonecutter hammering away at >> his rock, perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. >> Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was >> not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before.” >> >> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com/> >> > > ------------------------------------------- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
