> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com]
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:09 AM, John G. Rose
> wrote:
> "statements of stupidity" - some of these are examples of cramming
> sophisticated thoughts into simplistic compressed text.
>
> Definitely, as even t
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com]
>
> The Turing test is not in fact a test of intelligence, it is a test of
similarity with
> the human. Hence for a machine to be truly Turing it would have to make
> mistakes. Now any "useful" system will be made as int
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Abram Demski wrote:
>
> (Without this sort of generality, your approach seems restricted to
> gathering knowledge about whatever events unfold in front of a limited
> quantity of high-quality camera systems which you set up. To be honest, the
> usefulness of that s
David,
Seems like a reasonable argument to me. I agree with the emphasis on
acquiring knowledge. I agree that tackling language first is not the easiest
path. I agree with the comments on compositionality of knowledge & the
regularity of the vast majority of the environment.
Vision seems like a f
1) You don't define the difference between narrow AI and AGI - or make clear
why your approach is one and not the other
2) "Learning about the world" won't cut it - vast nos. of progs. claim they
can learn about the world - what's the difference between narrow AI and AGI
learning?
3) "Breakin
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Jim Bromer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:27 AM, David Jones wrote:
> *So, why computer vision? Why can't we just enter knowledge manually?
>
> *
> a) The knowledge we require for AI to do what we want is vast and complex
> and we can prove that it is completel
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:27 AM, David Jones wrote:
*So, why computer vision? Why can't we just enter knowledge manually?
*a) The knowledge we require for AI to do what we want is vast and complex
and we can prove that it is completely ineffective to enter the knowledge we
need manually.
b) Comput
Jim,
>From the article Matt linked to, specifically see the line:
"As [image: p] is itself a binary string, we can define the discrete
universal a priori probability, [image: m(x)], to be the probability that
the output of a universal prefix Turing machine [image: U] is [image:
x]when provided wi
This is on the surface interesting. But I'm kinda dubious about it.
I'd like to know exactly what's going on - who or what (what kind of organism)
is solving what kind of problem about what? The exact nature of the problem and
the solution, not just a general blurb description.
If you follow t
This is much more interesting in the context of Evolution than it is for
the creation of AGI. Point is that all the things that have ben done would
have been done (much more simply in fact) from straightforward narrow
programs. However it demonstrates the early multicelluar organisms of the
Pre Cam
Jim, see http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Algorithmic_probability
I think this answers your questions.
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
From: Jim Bromer
To: agi
Sent: Fri, August 6, 2010 2:18:09 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solo
John,
Congratulations, as your response was the only one that was on topic!!!
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:09 AM, John G. Rose wrote:
> "statements of stupidity" - some of these are examples of cramming
> sophisticated thoughts into simplistic compressed text.
>
Definitely, as even the thoughts of
Interesting article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727723.700-artificial-life-forms-evolve-basic-intelligence.html?page=1
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Jan Klauck wrote:
> Ian Parker wrote
>
> > I would like your
> > opinion on *proofs* which involve an unproven hypothesis,
>
> I've n
I meant:
Did Solomonoff's original idea use randomization to determine the bits of
the programs that are used to produce the *prior probabilities*? I think
that the answer to that is obviously no. The randomization of the next bit
would used in the test of the prior probabilities as done using a
I think that some quite important philosofical questions are raised by
Steve's posting. I don't know BTW how you got it. I monitor all
correspondence to the group, and I did not see it.
The Turing test is not in fact a test of intelligence, it is a test of
similarity with the human. Hence for a ma
Maybe you could give me one example from the history of technology where
machines "ran" before they could "walk"? Where they started complex rather than
simple? Or indeed from evolution of any kind? Or indeed from human
development? Where children started doing complex mental operations like lo
"statements of stupidity" - some of these are examples of cramming
sophisticated thoughts into simplistic compressed text. Language is both
intelligence enhancing and limiting. Human language is a protocol between
agents. So there is minimalist data transfer, "I had no choice but to ..."
is a compr
Mike Tintner wrote:
> What will be the SIMPLEST thing that will mark the first sign of AGI ? -
> Given
>that there are zero but zero examples of AGI.
Machines have already surpassed human intelligence. If you don't think so, try
this IQ test. http://mattmahoney.net/iq/
Or do you prefer to def
Mike,
Your reply flies in the face of two obvious facts:
1. I have little interest in what is called AGI here. My interests lie
elsewhere, e.g. uploading, Dr. Eliza, etc. I posted this piece for several
reasons, as it is directly applicable to Dr. Eliza, and because it casts a
shadow on future dr
>
> Jim: So, did Solomonoff's original idea involve randomizing whether the
> next bit would be a 1 or a 0 in the program?
Abram: Yep.
I meant, did Solomonoff's original idea involve randomizing whether the next
bit in the program's that are originally used to produce the *prior
probabilities* inv
sTEVE:I have posted plenty about "statements of ignorance", our probable
inability to comprehend what an advanced intelligence might be "thinking",
What will be the SIMPLEST thing that will mark the first sign of AGI ? - Given
that there are zero but zero examples of AGI.
Don't you think it wo
To All,
I have posted plenty about "statements of ignorance", our probable inability
to comprehend what an advanced intelligence might be "thinking", heidenbugs,
etc. I am now wrestling with a new (to me) concept that hopefully others
here can shed some light on.
People often say things that indi
22 matches
Mail list logo