On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A test of understanding is if one can give a correct *explanation* for any
and all of the possible outputs that it (the thing to understand) produces.
Unfortunately, explanation is just as ambiguous a word as
understanding,
Matt,
On 5/9/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After many postings on this subject, I still assert that
ANY rational AGI would be religious.
Not necessarily. You execute a program P that inputs the conditions
of
the game and outputs 1 box or 2 boxes. Omega executes a
2008/5/10 Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is still quite ambiguous on a number of levels, so would it be possible
for you to give us a road map of where the argument is going? At the moment
I am not sure what the theme is.
That is because I am still ambiguous as to what the later
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 8:38 AM, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) A system similar to automatic programming that takes descriptions
in a formal language given from the outside and potentially malicious
sources and generates a program from them. The language would be
sufficient to
I'm not understanding why an *explanation* would be ambiguous? If I
have a process / function that consistently transforms x into y, then
doesn't the process serve as a non-ambiguous explanation of how y came
into being? (presuming this is the thing to be explained.)
If I offer a theory and
Do you think a hierarchy structure could be too restrictive? What if low-hierarchy processes need to make a snap decision to turn off high-level ones. How are new processes put into the hierarchy? What if a high-level process is faulty and should be deactivated?I think the 'scheduling' should be a
- Original Message
From: rooftop8000 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 12:35:49 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] organising parallel processes, try2
Do you think a hierarchy structure could be too restrictive?
No, I have not yet found a use case that would
Jim Bromer wrote:
---
I think it is important to note that understanding a subject does not
mean that you understand everything about the subject. This is not a
reasonable proposal. I think Stan is saying that understanding an
algorithm is giving an
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 10:10 PM, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It depends on the system you are designing on. I think you can easily
create as many types of sand box as you want in programming language E
(1) for example. If the principle of least authority (2) is embedded
in the
--- Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
On 5/9/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After many postings on this subject, I still assert that
ANY rational AGI would be religious.
Not necessarily. You execute a program P that inputs the
conditions
of
--- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
OK, let me make more clear the distinction between running a program
and
simulating it. Say that a program P simulates a program Q if for all
y,
P((Q,y)) = the output
--- Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not understanding why an *explanation* would be ambiguous? If I
have a process / function that consistently transforms x into y, then
doesn't the process serve as a non-ambiguous explanation of how y came
into being? (presuming this is the
12 matches
Mail list logo
