I updated my AGI proposal from a few days ago.
http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi2.html
There are two major changes. First I clarified the routing strategy and
justified it on an information theoretic basis. An organization is optimally
efficient when its members specialize with no duplication of
I was eager to debunk your supposed debunking of recursive self-improvement,
but I found that when I tried to open that PDF file, it looked like a bunch
of gibberish (random control characters) in my PDF reader (Preview on OSX
Leopard)
ben g
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL
We all know that no body of theories has yet solved the major AI
problems that confront us at this time.
I feel that the discussions about methodologies that may be
theoretically sound or reasonable but not proven to be completely
effective in application should include discussion about the
I agree it is far nicer when advocates of theories are willing to gracefully
entertain constructive criticisms of their theories.
However, historically, I'm not sure it's true that this sort of grace on the
part of a theorist is well-correlated with the ultimate success of that
theorist's
Well, how about privately sending me a few of those names. I know
that Wittgenstein was pretty obnoxious after WW1, but I don't think
that he made much substantial progress during that time. I think his
most important work was written during the war, in the trenches I
think. (I may be mistaken.)
--- On Mon, 10/13/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was eager to debunk your supposed debunking of recursive self-improvement,
but I found that when I tried to open that PDF file, it looked like a bunch
of gibberish (random control characters) in my PDF reader (Preview on OSX
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree it is far nicer when advocates of theories are willing to gracefully
entertain constructive criticisms of their theories.
However, historically, I'm not sure it's true that this sort of grace on the
part of a
Jim,
I really don't have time for a long debate on the historical psychology of
scientists...
To give some random examples though: Newton, Leibniz and Gauss were
certainly obnoxious, egomaniacal pains in the ass though ... Edward Teller
... Goethe, whose stubbornness was largely on-the-mark with
I can read the pdf just fine. I am also using mac's Preview program.
So it is not that...
--Abram
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- On Mon, 10/13/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was eager to debunk your supposed debunking of recursive
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Jim,
I really don't have time for a long debate on the historical
psychology of scientists...
To give some random examples though: Newton, Leibniz and Gauss were
certainly obnoxious, egomaniacal pains in the ass though ... Edward
Teller ... Goethe, whose stubbornness
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's odd. Maybe you should run Windows :-(
No. You should not run Windows
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Charles Hixson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Galileo, Bruno of Nolan, etc.
OTOH, Paracelsus was quite personable. So was, reputedly, Pythagoras. (No
good evidence on Pythagoras, though. Only stories from supporters.) (Also,
consider that the Pythagoreans,
Jim Bromer wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Charles Hixson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Galileo, Bruno of Nolan, etc.
OTOH, Paracelsus was quite personable. So was, reputedly, Pythagoras. (No
good evidence on Pythagoras, though. Only stories from supporters.) (Also,
consider that
Colin,
Yes you and Rescher are going in a good direction, but you can make it all
simpler still, by being more specific..
We can take it for granted that we're talking here mainly about whether
*incomplete* creative works should be criticised.
If we're talking about scientific theories, then
Journal of Artificial General Intelligence (JAGI) has opened to submissions.
See http://journal.agi-network.org
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your
Mike Tintner wrote:
Colin,
Yes you and Rescher are going in a good direction, but you can make it
all simpler still, by being more specific..
We can take it for granted that we're talking here mainly about
whether *incomplete* creative works should be criticised.
If we're talking about
But when you see someone, theorist or critic, who almost never
demonstrates any genuine capacity for reexamining his own theories or
criticisms from any critical vantage point what so ever, then it's a
strong negative indicator.
Jim Bromer
I would be hesitant to draw strong conclusions
--- On Mon, 10/13/08, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the wider world of science it is the current state of play that the
theoretical basis for real AGI is an open and multi-disciplinary
question. A forum that purports to be invested in achievement of real
AGI as a target, one would
Hi,
OK, I read the supposed refutation of recursive self-improvement at
http://www.mattmahoney.net/rsi.html
There are at least three extremely major problems with the argument.
1)
By looking only at algorithmic information (defined in terms of program
length) and ignoring runtime complexity,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I have swung between extremes of excessive self-doubt
and excessive self-confidence many times ... but one way or another,
I've kept pushing ahead hard with the work, regardless of the emotional
fluctuations my
Ben,
Thanks for the comments on my RSI paper. To address your comments,
1. I defined improvement as achieving the same goal (utility) in less time or
achieving greater utility in the same time. I don't understand your objection
that I am ignoring run time complexity.
2. I agree that an AIXI
Hi Matt,
... The Gamez paper situation is now...erm...resolved. You are right:
the paper doesn't argue that solving consciousness is necessary for AGI.
What has happened recently is a subtle shift - those involved simple
fail to make claims about the consciousness or otherwise of the
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
Thanks for the comments on my RSI paper. To address your comments,
You seem to be addressing minor lacunae in my wording, while ignoring my
main conceptual and mathematical point!!!
1. I defined improvement as
Colin wrote:
The only working, known model of general intelligence is the human. If we
base AGI on anything that fails to account scientifically and completely for
*all* aspects of human cognition, including consciousness, then we open
ourselves to critical inferiority... and the rest of
Ben,
If you want to argue that recursive self improvement is a special case of
learning, then I have no disagreement with the rest of your argument.
But is this really a useful approach to solving AGI? A group of humans can
generally make better decisions (more accurate predictions) by voting
OK, well now you are backing away from your claim of a mathematical disproof
of RSI!!
What you did IMHO was to prove there is limited value in RSI by defining RSI
in a very limited way, and then measuring the value of this limited-RSI in a
manner that does not capture the practical value of any
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Colin wrote:
The only working, known model of general intelligence is the
human. If we base AGI on anything that fails to account
scientifically and completely for /all/ aspects of human
cognition, including consciousness, then we open ourselves to
27 matches
Mail list logo
