On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Thomas McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Samantha Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thomas McCabe wrote: > > > Popularity is irrelevant. > > Popularity, of course, is not the ultimate judge of accuracy. But are > you seriously claiming that how many people support a theory is > totally uncorrelated with the accuracy of said theory? Even after the > theory has been debated for years? > In the case of AGI theories I am certainly saying that. Few are capable of judging AGI theories detailed enough to be under construction in detail and most of those do not survey the field or have their own declared favorite. The rubber hasn't fully met the road to judge between them based on results. FAI theory has even less real traction is currently closer to philosophy imho. So yes, at this point popularity gives not much of a clue as to correctness. Even in far less cutting edge areas the history of science is replete with examples of the most popular theory being incorrect or at least sorely lacking. > > > While I am not an AGI researcher I occasionally > > notice where the weak spots in various theories are and speak up > > accordingly. There is no way I consider Richard Loosemore to be some > kind > > of crackpot. His theories appear as valid as any I have read from > > Eliezer. > > If you look at Richard Loosemore's blog (http://susaro.com/), you will > essentially find an extremely-long-winded restatement of Rice's > Theorem > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice's_theorem<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem>), > and a > non-canonical redefinition of the word "complexity". This is not a > great deal of intellectual content, considering the volume of > Richard's posts. Compare one of his five-page posts to, say, this > statement of a general workaround by Eliezer: > > "Rice's Theorem states that it is not possible to distinguish whether an > arbitrary computer program implements any function, including, say, simple > multiplication. And yet, despite Rice's Theorem, modern chip engineers > create computer chips that implement multiplication. Chip engineers > select, > from all the vast space of possibilities, only those chip designs which > they > can understand." I will read more of Richard's stuff. I may have misspoke. I have tremendous respect for Eliezer even if I often think he is going down a long and relatively fruitless road. > > > Unless I missed a major development Eliezer's FAI theory is not > > at a point where its validity can be reasonably confidently judged. > > Actually a true pet theory by your definition might well be the one > > breakthrough wild idea that turns out to work. I think it is much too > early > > to be dismissive of anything beyond obvious nonsense. > > > > If fai-logistics is not in fact working off Eliezer's ideas then > exactly > > what is the group using as its starting basis? > > > I would still very much like an answer to this. - samantha ------------------------------------------- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=101816851-9a120b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
