On Friday 21 December 2007 09:51:13 pm, Ed Porter wrote:
As a lawyer, I can tell you there is no clear agreed upon definition for
most words, but that doesn't stop most of us from using un-clearly defined
words productively many times every day for communication with others. If
you can only
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
Thanks for the links sent earlier. I especially like the paper by Legg
and Hutter regarding measurement of machine intelligence. The other
paper I find
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
Thanks for the links sent earlier. I especially like the paper by Legg
and Hutter regarding measurement of machine intelligence. The other
paper I find difficult,
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still more nonsense: as I have pointed out before, Hutter's implied
definitions of agent and environment and intelligence are not
connected to real world usages of those terms, because he allows all of
these things to depend on infinities
On Dec 21, 2007 6:56 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still more nonsense: as I have pointed out before, Hutter's implied
definitions of agent and environment and intelligence are not
connected to real world usages of those terms,
--- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 21, 2007 6:56 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still more nonsense: as I have pointed out before, Hutter's implied
definitions of agent and environment and intelligence are not
On Dec 21, 2007 10:36 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem here seems to be that we can't agree on a useful definition of
intelligence. As a practical matter, we are interested in an agent meeting
goals in a specific environment, or a finite set of environments, not all
Matt: Humans cannot recognize intelligence superior
to their own.
This like this whole thread is not totally but highly unimaginative. No one
is throwing out any interesting ideas about what a superior intelligence
might entail. Mainly it's the same old mathematical, linear approach.
I fail to see why it would not at least be considered likely that a
mechanical brain that could do all the major useful mental processes the
human mind does, but do them much faster over a much, much larger recorded
body of experience and learning, would not be capable of greater
intelligence
How about how many useful patents the AGI can lay claim to in a year.
We feed in all the world's major problems and ask it for any inventions
which would provide cost effictive partial solutions towards solving these
problems.
Obviously there will be many alternate problems and solution paths
--- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Intelligence is 'what brains do'
--- Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't you read any superhero/superpower comics or sci-fi? Obviously there
are an infinite number of very recognisable forms which a superhuman
intelligence could take.
---
to have more of
it than we do within a decade or two.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 5:34 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Possibility of superhuman intelligence (was Re: [agi] AGI and
Deity)
--- Vladimir
Matt,
Thanks for the links sent earlier. I especially like the paper by Legg
and Hutter regarding measurement of machine intelligence. The other
paper I find difficult, probably it's deeper than I am.
comment on two things:
1) The response Intelligence has nothing to do with
--- Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
Thanks for the links sent earlier. I especially like the paper by Legg
and Hutter regarding measurement of machine intelligence. The other
paper I find difficult, probably it's deeper than I am.
The AIXI paper is essentially a proof of
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
Thanks for the links sent earlier. I especially like the paper by Legg
and Hutter regarding measurement of machine intelligence. The other
paper I find difficult, probably it's deeper than I am.
The AIXI paper is
15 matches
Mail list logo
