- Original Message
From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't claim that compression is simple. It is not. Text compression is
AI-complete. The general problem is not even computable.
...I claim that compression can be used to measure intelligence. I explain in
more detail at
--- Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message
From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't claim that compression is simple. It is not. Text compression
is
AI-complete. The general problem is not even computable.
...I claim that compression can be used to
I had said:
But this means that you are
advancing a purely speculative theory without any evidence to support
it.
Matt said:
The evidence is described in my paper which you haven't read yet.
I did glance at the paper and I don't think I will be
- Original Message
From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your question answering machine is algorithmically complex. A smaller
program could describe a procedure for answering the questions, and in
that case it could answer questions not in the original set of 1.
Here is another
--- Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can try to find the fundamentals of intelligence, that is of
algorithmic intelligence, but that does not mean that you will be able
to produce intelligence before you find a theory that is complex enough
to explain how artificial intelligence can be
Matt mahoney:
I am not sure what you mean by AGI. I consider a measure of intelligence
to be the degree to which goals are satisfied in a range of environments.
It does not matter what the goals are. They may seem irrational to you.
The goal of a smart bomb is to blow itself up at a
--- William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt mahoney:
I propose prediction as a general test of understanding. For example,
do you understand the sequence 0101010101010101 ? If I asked you to
predict
the next bit and you did so correctly, then I would say you understand
it.
What
- Original Message
Matt Mahoney said:
Remember that the goal is to test for understanding in intelligent
agents that are not necessarily human. What does it mean for a machine to
understand something? What does it mean to understand a string of bits?
I propose prediction as a general
--- Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, Understanding=compression. That is really pretty far out there.
This conclusion is based on an argument
like: One would be able to predict everything if he was able to
understand everything (or at least everything predictable). This
argument,
Matt Mahoney wrote:
Remember that the goal is to test for understanding in intelligent
agents that are not necessarily human. What does it mean for a machine to
understand something? What does it mean to understand a string of bits?
Have you considered testing intelligent agents by simply
--- Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
Remember that the goal is to test for understanding in intelligent
agents that are not necessarily human. What does it mean for a
machine to
understand something? What does it mean to understand a string of
bits?
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
Remember that the goal is to test for understanding in intelligent
agents that are not necessarily human. What does it mean for a
machine to
understand something? What does it mean to understand a string of
--- Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
Remember that the goal is to test for understanding in intelligent
agents that are not necessarily human. What does it mean for a
machine to
understand
--- Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney said,
A formal explanation of a program P would be a equivalent program Q,
such
that P(x) = Q(x) for all x. Although it is not possible to prove
equivalence in general, it is sometimes possible to prove nonequivalence
by finding x such
--- 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
15 matches
Mail list logo
