On 05/02/2008, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William P : I can't think > of any external test that can't be fooled by a giant look up table > (ned block thought of this argument first). > > A by definition requirement of a "general test" is that the systembuilder > doesn't set it, and can't prepare for it as you indicate. He can't know > whether the test for, say, his lego-constructing system is going to be > building a machine, or constructing a water dam with rocks, or a game that > involves fitting blocks into holes.
He can't know. but he might guess. It will be hard to test between the builders lucky guess(es) and generality. > His system must be able to adapt to any > adjacent-domain activity whatsoever. That too is the point of the robot > challenge test - the roboticists won't know beforehand what that planetary > camp emergency is going to be. I think we have different ideas of what a test should be. I am looking for a scientific test, in which repeatability and fairness are important features. One last question what exactly defines adjacent in your test? Is composing poetry adjacent to solving non-linear equations. I agree that this type of testing will winnow out lots of non-general systems. But it might let a few slip through the cracks or say a general system is non-general. I would fail the test some days when I am ill, as all I would want to do is go to sleep not try and solve the problem. Will Pearson ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=93723647-9e9867
