I was referring to Matt Mahoney, who said that you could formally prove intelligence's unpredictability and then cited a paper proving it so long as "intelligence" really meant "algorithmic complexity". To quote:
"We cannot rule out this possibility because a lesser intelligence cannot predict what a greater intelligence will do. If you measure intelligence using algorithmic complexity, then Legg proved this formally. http://www.vetta.org/documents/IDSIA-12-06-1.pdf"; - Tom --- Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > tom, I think the point is, it seems like you didn't > actually > read and understand Shane's definition of > intelligence... > > ben > > On 5/15/07, Shane Legg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Tom, > > > > I'm sure any computer scientist worth their salt > could > > > > > use a computer to write up random > ten-billion-byte-long > > > > algorithms that would do exactly nothing. Defining > intelligence > > > > that way because it's mathematically neat is just > cheating > > > > > > Let's assume that you can make a very long program > that > > is random and does not do anything. > > > > Why is this a problem? > > > > Cheers > > Shane > > > > ------------------------------ > > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: > http://www.agiri.org/email > > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go > to: > > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > > > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: > http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ____________________________________________________________________________________Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222 ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=8eb45b07
