On Jan 21, 2008 6:17 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, people do have a practically useful way of cheating problems in NP
now. Problem with AGI is, we don't know how to program it even given
computers with infinite computational power.
Well, that is wrong IMO AIXI and the
On Jan 20, 2008 10:17 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, people do have a practically useful way of cheating problems in NP
now. Problem with AGI is, we don't know how to program it even given
computers with infinite computational power.
Well, that is wrong IMO AIXI and the
SMT in particular seems to have deep potential applicability.
To add a little background, SMT is under heavy developement at Microsoft
and it is planned to be applied a lot. The basic progress is that the
new version of
Z3 is an order of magnitude faster than the last one, and is even a
As far as I know there is little or no work done yet to integrate
probabilistic
reasoning with these solvers and it will probably not be easy to do it and
keep things efficient.
I don't think it will be easy, but what's intriguing is that it seems
like it might
be feasible-though-difficult
--- Samantha Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In http://www.mattmahoney.net/singularity.html I discuss how a
singularity
will end the human race, but without judgment whether this is good
or bad.
Any such judgment is based on emotion.
Really? I can think of arguments why this
For example, hunger is an emotion, but the
desire for money to buy food is not
Hunger is a sensation, not an emotion.
The sensation is unpleasant and you have a hard-coded goal to get rid of it.
Further, desires tread pretty close to the line of emotions if not actually
crossing over . . . .
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Samantha Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In http://www.mattmahoney.net/singularity.html I discuss how a
singularity
will end the human race, but without judgment whether this is good
or bad.
Any such judgment is based on emotion.
Really? I can think of arguments why
If I know you are against X, while X is not one of the s_i, but some
general description of it, how can you use the formula?
If the knowledge in a data compressor is all at the level of letter
string, how can it use the knowledge about the theme of a paper to
compress it better?
Pei
For
On Jan 20, 2008 2:34 PM, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am disappointed because the question of how a polynomial time solution of
logical satisfiability might affect agi is very important to me.
Ben Wrote:
Well, feel free to start a new thread on that topic, then ;-)
In fact, I will do
--- Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I know you are against X, while X is not one of the s_i, but some
general description of it, how can you use the formula?
If you were compressing the message on topic X I {agree|disagree} and you
are predicting bit 2 (after compressing bits 7 through 3
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
This usage of emotion is idiosyncratic and causes endless confusion.
You're right. I didn't mean for the discussion to devolve into a disagreement
over definitions.
As for your larger point, I continue to vehemently disagree with your
11 matches
Mail list logo
