Abram,
Solomoff Induction would produce poor predictions if it could be used to
compute them. 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.
You could experiment with finite possible ways to produce a string and
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
Ben Goertzel wrote:
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
The principle of Solomonoff induction can be applied to computable subsets of
the (infinite) hypothesis
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
Ben Goertzel wrote:
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
The principle of Solomonoff
Mike,
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
Isn't the first problem simply to differentiate the objects in a scene?
Well, that is part of the movement problem. If you say something moved, you
are also saying that the objects in the two or more video
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)
Couple of quick comments (I'm still thinking about all this - but I'm
confident everything AGI links up here).
A fluid schema is arguably by its v. nature a method - a trial and error,
arguably universal method. It links vision to the hand or any effector.
Handling objects also is based on
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
Couple of quick comments (I'm still thinking about all this - but I'm
confident everything AGI links up here).
A fluid schema is arguably by its v. nature a method - a trial and error,
arguably universal method.
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
If fluid schemas - speaking broadly - are what is needed, (and I'm pretty sure
they are), it's n.g. trying for something else. You can't substitute a square
approach for a fluid amoeba outline approach. (And you will certainly need
exactly such an approach to recognize amoeba's).
If it
Mike,
Please outline your algorithm for fluid schemas though. It will be clear
when you do that you are faced with the exact same uncertainty problems I am
dealing with and trying to solve. The problems are completely equivalent.
Yours is just a specific approach that is not sufficiently defined.
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
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
I don't think Solomonoff induction is a particularly useful direction for
AI, I was just taking issue with the statement made that it is not capable
of correct prediction given adequate resources...
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 11:35 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
Although I haven't
There isn't an algorithm. It's basically a matter of overlaying shapes to see
if they fit - much as you put one hand against another to see if they fit -
much as you can overlay a hand to see if it fits and is capable of grasping an
object - except considerably more fluid/ rougher. There has
The way I define algorithms encompasses just about any intelligently
designed system. So, call it what you want. I really wish you would stop
avoiding the word. But, fine. I'll play your word game...
Define your system please. And justify why or how it handles uncertainty.
You said overlay a hand
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote:
I don't think Solomonoff induction is a particularly useful direction for
AI, I was just taking issue with the statement made that it is not capable
of correct prediction given adequate resources...
Pi is not computable.
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
The proof is based on the diagonal argument of Cantor, but it might be
considered as variation of Cantor's diagonal argument. There can be no one
to one *mapping of the computation to an usage* as the computation
approaches
Solomonoff Induction is not a mathematical conjecture. We can talk about a
function which is based on all mathematical functions, but since we cannot
define that as a mathematical function it is not a realizable function.
---
agi
Archives:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/9/singularity-university-robotics-ai
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
How was your overall experience there, anything you learn that is worth
mentioning?
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/9/singularity-university-robotics-ai
---
agi
I gave the lecture via Skype from my house in Maryland
I learned that NASA has a crap Internet connection 8-D
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:50 PM, The Wizard key.unive...@gmail.com wrote:
How was your overall experience there, anything you learn that is worth
mentioning?
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at
Their earthly based internet probably has been downgrade to allow more
bandwidth for the interplanetary internet ;-)
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote:
I gave the lecture via Skype from my house in Maryland
I learned that NASA has a crap Internet connection
I guess the Godel Theorem is called a theorem, so Solomonoff Induction
would be called a theorem. I believe that Solomonoff Induction is
computable, but the claims that are made for it are not provable because
there is no way you could prove that it approaches a stable limit (stable
limits).
24 matches
Mail list logo
