One of the problems that comes with the casual use of analytical
methods is that the user becomes inured to their habitual misuse. When
a casual familiarity is combined with a habitual ignorance of the
consequences of a misuse the user can become over-confident or
unwisely dismissive of criticism
Jim,
There is a large body of literature on avoiding overfitting, ie,
finding patterns that work for more then just the data at hand. Of
course, the ultimate conclusion is that you can never be 100% sure;
but some interesting safeguards have been cooked up anyway, which help
in practice.
My
Jim,
YES - and I think I have another piece of your puzzle to consider...
A longtime friend of mine, Dave, went on to become a PhD psychologist, who
subsequently took me on as a sort of project - to figure out why most
people who met me then either greatly valued my friendship, or quite the
Hi. I will just make a quick response to this message and then I want
to think about the other messages before I reply.
A few weeks ago I decided that I would write a criticism of
ai-probability to post to this group. I wasn't able remember all of
my criticisms so I decided to post a few
Well, if you're willing to take the step of asking questions about the
world that are framed in terms of probabilities and probability
distributions ... then modern probability and statistics tell you a
lot about overfitting and how to avoid it...
OTOH if, like Pei Wang, you think it's misguided
--- On Sat, 11/29/08, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure if Norvig's application of a probabilistic method to
detect overfitting is truly directed toward the agi community. In
other words: Has anyone in this grouped tested the utility and clarity
of the decision making of a
A response to:
I wondered why anyone would deface the
expression of his own thoughts with an emotional and hostile message,
My theory is that thoughts are generated internally and forced into words via a
babble generator. Then the thoughts are filtered through a screen to remove
any that
A general approach to this that frequently works is to examine the
definitions that you are using for ambiguity. Then to look for
operational tests. If the only clear meanings lack operational tests,
then it's probably worthless to waste computing resources on the problem
until those
Well.
The speed of light limitation seems rather secure. So I would propose
that we have been visited by roboticized probes, rather than by
naturally evolved creatures. And the energetic constraints make it seem
likely that they were extremely small and infrequent...though I suppose
that
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Eliezer Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shane Legg, I don't mean to be harsh, but your attempt to link
Kolmogorov complexity to intelligence is causing brain damage among
impressionable youths.
( Link debunked here:
In response to my message, where I said,
What is wrong with the AI-probability group mind-set is that very few
of its proponents ever consider the problem of statistical ambiguity
and its obvious consequences.
Abram noted,
The AI-probability group definitely considers such problems.
There is a
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me the big weaknesses of modern probability theory lie in
**hypothesis generation** and **inference**. Testing a hypothesis
against data, to see if it's overfit to that data, is handled well by
crossvalidation and
Whether an AI needs to explicitly manipulate declarative statements is
a deep question ... it may be that other dynamics that are in some
contexts implicitly equivalent to this sort of manipulation will
suffice
But anyway, there is no contradiction between manipulating explicit
declarative
Could you give me a little more detail about your thoughts on this?
Do you think the problem of increasing uncomputableness of complicated
complexity is the common thread found in all of the interesting,
useful but unscalable methods of AI?
Jim Bromer
Well, I think that dealing with
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Steve Richfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim,
YES - and I think I have another piece of your puzzle to consider...
A longtime friend of mine, Dave, went on to become a PhD psychologist, who
subsequently took me on as a sort of project - to figure out why
What are the best available critiques of CYC as it exists now (vs. soon
after project started)?
Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hanson.gmu.edu
Research Associate, Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford
University
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow
Hi Robin,
There are no Cyc critiques that I know of in the last few years. I was
employed seven years at Cycorp until August 2006 and my non-compete agreement
expired a year later.
An interesting competition was held by Project Halo in which Cycorp
participated along with two other
17 matches
Mail list logo
