[agi] Cosmist Manifesto available via Amazon.com
Hi all, My new futurist tract The Cosmist Manifesto is now available on Amazon.com, courtesy of Humanity+ Press: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0984609709/ Thanks to Natasha Vita-More for the beautiful cover, and David Orban for helping make the book happen... -- Ben -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Yes we could do a 4x4 tic tac toe game like this in a PC. The training sets can be generated simply by playing the agents against each other using random moves and letting the agents know if it passed or failed as a feedback mechanism. Cheers, Deepak On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: Mike, I think we all agree that we should not have to tell an AGI the steps to solving problems. It should learn and figure it out, like the way that people figure it out. The question is how to do that. We know that it is possible. For example, I could write a chess program that I could not win against. I could write the program in such a way that it learns to improve its game by playing against itself or other opponents. I could write it in such a way that initially does not know the rules for chess, but instead learns the rules by being given examples of legal and illegal moves. What we have not yet been able to do is scale this type of learning and problem solving up to general, human level intelligence. I believe it is possible, but it will require lots of training data and lots of computing power. It is not something you could do on a PC, and it won't be cheap. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com -- *From:* Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 9:07:53 PM *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI The issue isn't what a computer can do. The issue is how you structure the computer's or any agent's thinking about a problem. Programs/Turing machines are only one way of structuring thinking/problemsolving - by, among other things, giving the computer a method/process of solution. There is an alternative way of structuring a computer's thinking, which incl., among other things, not giving it a method/ process of solution, but making it rather than a human programmer do the real problemsolving. More of that another time. *From:* Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:38 AM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Creativity is the good feeling you get when you discover a clever solution to a hard problem without knowing the process you used to discover it. I think a computer could do that. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com -- *From:* Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Mon, July 19, 2010 2:08:28 PM *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Yes that's what people do, but it's not what programmed computers do. The useful formulation that emerges here is: narrow AI (and in fact all rational) problems have *a method of solution* (to be equated with general method) - and are programmable (a program is a method of solution) AGI (and in fact all creative) problems do NOT have *a method of solution* (in the general sense) - rather a one.off *way of solving the problem* has to be improvised each time. AGI/creative problems do not in fact have a method of solution, period. There is no (general) method of solving either the toy box or the build-a-rock-wall problem - one essential feature which makes them AGI. You can learn, as you indicate, from *parts* of any given AGI/creative solution, and apply the lessons to future problems - and indeed with practice, should improve at solving any given kind of AGI/creative problem. But you can never apply a *whole* solution/way to further problems. P.S. One should add that in terms of computers, we are talking here of *complete, step-by-step* methods of solution. *From:* rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 5:09 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI And are you happy with: AGI is about devising *one-off* methods of problemsolving (that only apply to the individual problem, and cannot be re-used - at least not in their totality) Yes exactly, isn't that what people do? Also, I think that being able to recognize where past solutions can be generalized and where past solutions can be varied and reused is a detail of how intelligence works that is likely to be universal. vs narrow AI is about applying pre-existing *general* methods of problemsolving (applicable to whole classes of problems)? *From:* rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 4:45 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Well, solving ANY problem is a little too strong. This is AGI, not AGH (artificial godhead), though AGH could be an unintended consequence ;). So I would rephrase solving any problem as being able to come up with reasonable approaches and strategies to any problem (just as humans are able to do). On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Mike Tintner
Re: [agi] The Collective Brain
Mike Tintner wrote You partly illustrate my point - you talk of artificial brains as if they actually exist That's the magic of thinking in scenarios. For you it may appear as if we couldn't differentiate between reality and a thought experiment. By implicitly pretending that artificial brains exist - in the form of computer programs - you (and most AGI-ers), deflect attention away from all the unsolved dimensions of what is required for an independent brain-cum-living system, natural or artificial. Then bring this topic up. But please in an educated way and not with the same half-understanding of AGI and math you demonstrate here. But to be honest I expect you to talk about this with your usual misunderstandings and then wonder that nobody (positively) reacts on that--and then you'll again run around and whine that we don't get it. (And what's an artificial brain-cum-living system?) Yes you may know these things some times as you say, but most of the time they're forgotten. There are other topics that often require more focus at this time. People are working on details you usually don't understand and don't care to understand. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Training data is not available in many real problems. I don't think training data should be used as the main learning mechanism. It likely won't solve any of the problems. On Jul 21, 2010 2:52 AM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote: Yes we could do a 4x4 tic tac toe game like this in a PC. The training sets can be generated simply by playing the agents against each other using random moves and letting the agents know if it passed or failed as a feedback mechanism. Cheers, Deepak On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: Mike, I think we a... -- cheers, Deepak *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Matt, How did you learn to play chess? Or write programs? How do you teach people to write programs? Compare and contrast - esp. the nature and number/ extent of instructions - with how you propose to force a computer to learn below. Why is it that if you tell a child [real AGI] what to do, it will never learn? Why can and does a human learner get to ask questions and a computer doesn't? How come you [a real AGI] can get to choose your instructors and textbooks, and/or whether you choose to pay attention to them, and a computer can't? Why do computers stop learning once they've done what they're told, and humans and animals never stop and keep going on to learn ever new activities? What and how many are the fundamental differences between how real AGI's and computers learn? Mike, I think we all agree that we should not have to tell an AGI the steps to solving problems. It should learn and figure it out, like the way that people figure it out. The question is how to do that. We know that it is possible. For example, I could write a chess program that I could not win against. I could write the program in such a way that it learns to improve its game by playing against itself or other opponents. I could write it in such a way that initially does not know the rules for chess, but instead learns the rules by being given examples of legal and illegal moves. What we have not yet been able to do is scale this type of learning and problem solving up to general, human level intelligence. I believe it is possible, but it will require lots of training data and lots of computing power. It is not something you could do on a PC, and it won't be cheap. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 9:07:53 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI The issue isn't what a computer can do. The issue is how you structure the computer's or any agent's thinking about a problem. Programs/Turing machines are only one way of structuring thinking/problemsolving - by, among other things, giving the computer a method/process of solution. There is an alternative way of structuring a computer's thinking, which incl., among other things, not giving it a method/ process of solution, but making it rather than a human programmer do the real problemsolving. More of that another time. From: Matt Mahoney Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:38 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Creativity is the good feeling you get when you discover a clever solution to a hard problem without knowing the process you used to discover it. I think a computer could do that. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:08:28 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI Yes that's what people do, but it's not what programmed computers do. The useful formulation that emerges here is: narrow AI (and in fact all rational) problems have *a method of solution* (to be equated with general method) - and are programmable (a program is a method of solution) AGI (and in fact all creative) problems do NOT have *a method of solution* (in the general sense) - rather a one.off *way of solving the problem* has to be improvised each time. AGI/creative problems do not in fact have a method of solution, period. There is no (general) method of solving either the toy box or the build-a-rock-wall problem - one essential feature which makes them AGI. You can learn, as you indicate, from *parts* of any given AGI/creative solution, and apply the lessons to future problems - and indeed with practice, should improve at solving any given kind of AGI/creative problem. But you can never apply a *whole* solution/way to further problems. P.S. One should add that in terms of computers, we are talking here of *complete, step-by-step* methods of solution. From: rob levy Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:09 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI And are you happy with: AGI is about devising *one-off* methods of problemsolving (that only apply to the individual problem, and cannot be re-used - at least not in their totality) Yes exactly, isn't that what people do? Also, I think that being able to recognize where past solutions can be generalized and where past solutions can be varied and reused is a detail of how intelligence works that is likely to be universal. vs narrow AI is about applying pre-existing *general* methods of problemsolving (applicable to whole classes of problems)? From: rob levy Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 4:45 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
A child AGI should be expected to need help learning how to solve many problems, and even be told what the steps are. But at some point it needs to have developed general problem-solving skills. But I feel like this is all stating the obvious. On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: Mike, I think we all agree that we should not have to tell an AGI the steps to solving problems. It should learn and figure it out, like the way that people figure it out. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Re: Cosmist Manifesto available via Amazon.com
Oh... and, a PDF version of the book is also available for free at http://goertzel.org/CosmistManifesto_July2010.pdf ;-) ... ben On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: Hi all, My new futurist tract The Cosmist Manifesto is now available on Amazon.com, courtesy of Humanity+ Press: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0984609709/ Thanks to Natasha Vita-More for the beautiful cover, and David Orban for helping make the book happen... -- Ben -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Re: Cosmist Manifesto available via Amazon.com
That's fantastic. Next steps I am going to do: - set up a Kindle edition - set up an iBooks edition - set up a Scribd edition D David Orban skype, twitter, linkedin, sl, etc: davidorban On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: Oh... and, a PDF version of the book is also available for free at http://goertzel.org/CosmistManifesto_July2010.pdf ;-) ... ben On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: Hi all, My new futurist tract The Cosmist Manifesto is now available on Amazon.com, courtesy of Humanity+ Press: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0984609709/ Thanks to Natasha Vita-More for the beautiful cover, and David Orban for helping make the book happen... -- Ben -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
Infants *start* with general learning skills - they have to extensively discover for themselves how to do most things - control head, reach out, turn over, sit up, crawl, walk - and also have to work out perceptually what the objects they see are, and what they do... and what sounds are, and how they form words, and how those words relate to objects - and how language works it is this capacity to keep discovering ways of doing things, that is a major motivation in their continually learning new activities - continually seeking novelty, and getting bored with too repetitive activities obviously an AGI needs some help.. but at the mo. all projects get *full* help/ *complete* instructions - IOW are merely dressed up versions of narrow AI no one AFAIK is dealing with the issue of how do you produce a true goalseeking agent who *can* discover things for itself? - an agent, that like humans and animals, can *find* its way to its goals generally, as well as to learning new activities, on its own initiative - rather than by following instructions. (The full instruction method only works in artificial, controlled environments and can't possibly work in the real, uncontrollable world - where future conditions are highly unpredictable, even by the sagest instructor). [Ben BTW strikes me as merely gesturing at all this]. There really can't be any serious argument about this - humans and animals clearly learn all their activities with v. limited and largely general rather than step-by-step instructions. You may want to argue there is an underlying general program that effectively specifies every step they must take (good luck) - but with respect to all their specialist.particular activities, - think having a conversation, sex, writing a post, an essay, fantasying, shopping, browsing the net, reading a newspaper - etc etc. - you got and get v. little step-by-step instruction about these and all your other activities So AGI's require a fundamentally and massively different paradigm of instruction to the program, comprehensive, step-by-step paradigm of narrow AI. [The rock wall/toybox tests BTW are AGI activities, where it is *impossible* to give full instructions, or produce a formula, whatever you may want to do]. From: rob levy Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:56 PM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI A child AGI should be expected to need help learning how to solve many problems, and even be told what the steps are. But at some point it needs to have developed general problem-solving skills. But I feel like this is all stating the obvious. On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: Mike, I think we all agree that we should not have to tell an AGI the steps to solving problems. It should learn and figure it out, like the way that people figure it out. agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] The Collective Brain
Mike Tintner wrote: The fantasy of a superAGI machine that can grow individually without a vast society supporting it, is another one of the wild fantasies of AGI-ers and Singularitarians that violate truly basic laws of nature. Individual brains cannot flourish individually in the real world, only societies of brains (and bodies) can. I agree. It is the basis of my AGI design, to supplement a global brain with computers. http://mattmahoney.net/agi2.html -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 1:50:45 PM Subject: [agi] The Collective Brain http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2010-07-20utm_campaign=newsletter_weeklyutm_medium=email Good lecture worth looking at about how trade - exchange of both goods and ideas - has fostered civilisation. Near the end introduces a v. important idea - the collective brain. In other words, our apparently individual intelligence is actually a collective intelligence. Nobody he points out actually knows how to make a computer mouse, although that may seem counterintuitive - it's an immensely complex piece of equipment, simple as it may appear, that engages the collective, interdependent intelligence and productive efforts of vast numbers of people. When you start thinking like that, you realise that there is v. little we know how to do, esp of an intellectual nature, individually, without the implicit and explicit collaboration of vast numbers of people and sectors of society. The fantasy of a superAGI machine that can grow individually without a vast society supporting it, is another one of the wild fantasies of AGI-ers and Singularitarians that violate truly basic laws of nature. Individual brains cannot flourish individually in the real world, only societies of brains (and bodies) can. (And of course computers can do absolutely nothing or in any way survive without their human masters - even if it may appear that way, if you don't look properly at their whole operation) agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
Jim Bromer wrote: The question was asked whether, given infinite resources could Solmonoff Induction work. I made the assumption that it was computable and found that it wouldn't work. On what infinitely powerful computer did you do your experiment? My conclusion suggests, that the use of Solmonoff Induction as an ideal for compression or something like MDL is not only unsubstantiated but based on a massive inability to comprehend the idea of a program that runs every possible program. It is sufficient to find the shortest program consistent with past results, not all programs. The difference is no more than the language-dependent constant. Legg proved this in the paper that Ben and I both pointed you to. Do you dispute his proof? I guess you don't, because you didn't respond the last 3 times this was pointed out to you. I am comfortable with the conclusion that the claim that Solomonoff Induction is an ideal for compression or induction or anything else is pretty shallow and not based on careful consideration. I am comfortable with the conclusion that the world is flat because I have a gut feeling about it and I ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is a chance that I am wrong So why don't you drop it? -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 3:10:40 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction The question was asked whether, given infinite resources could Solmonoff Induction work. I made the assumption that it was computable and found that it wouldn't work. It is not computable, even with infinite resources, for the kind of thing that was claimed it would do. (I believe that with a governance program it might actually be programmable) but it could not be used to predict (or compute the probability of) a subsequent string given some prefix string. Not only is the method impractical it is theoretically inane. My conclusion suggests, that the use of Solmonoff Induction as an ideal for compression or something like MDL is not only unsubstantiated but based on a massive inability to comprehend the idea of a program that runs every possible program. I am comfortable with the conclusion that the claim that Solomonoff Induction is an ideal for compression or induction or anything else is pretty shallow and not based on careful consideration. There is a chance that I am wrong, but I am confident that there is nothing in the definition of Solmonoff Induction that could be used to prove it. Jim Bromer agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
I completely agree with this characterization, I was just pointing out the importance already-existing generally intelligent entities in providing scaffolding for the system's learning and meta-learning processes. On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Infants *start* with general learning skills - they have to extensively discover for themselves how to do most things - control head, reach out, turn over, sit up, crawl, walk - and also have to work out perceptually what the objects they see are, and what they do... and what sounds are, and how they form words, and how those words relate to objects - and how language works it is this capacity to keep discovering ways of doing things, that is a major motivation in their continually learning new activities - continually seeking novelty, and getting bored with too repetitive activities obviously an AGI needs some help.. but at the mo. all projects get *full* help/ *complete* instructions - IOW are merely dressed up versions of narrow AI no one AFAIK is dealing with the issue of how do you produce a true goalseeking agent who *can* discover things for itself? - an agent, that like humans and animals, can *find* its way to its goals generally, as well as to learning new activities, on its own initiative - rather than by following instructions. (The full instruction method only works in artificial, controlled environments and can't possibly work in the real, uncontrollable world - where future conditions are highly unpredictable, even by the sagest instructor). [Ben BTW strikes me as merely gesturing at all this]. There really can't be any serious argument about this - humans and animals clearly learn all their activities with v. limited and largely general rather than step-by-step instructions. You may want to argue there is an underlying general program that effectively specifies every step they must take (good luck) - but with respect to all their specialist.particular activities, - think having a conversation, sex, writing a post, an essay, fantasying, shopping, browsing the net, reading a newspaper - etc etc. - you got and get v. little step-by-step instruction about these and all your other activities So AGI's require a fundamentally and massively different paradigm of instruction to the program, comprehensive, step-by-step paradigm of narrow AI. [The rock wall/toybox tests BTW are AGI activities, where it is *impossible* to give full instructions, or produce a formula, whatever you may want to do]. *From:* rob levy r.p.l...@gmail.com *Sent:* Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:56 PM *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Subject:* Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI A child AGI should be expected to need help learning how to solve many problems, and even be told what the steps are. But at some point it needs to have developed general problem-solving skills. But I feel like this is all stating the obvious. On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.comwrote: Mike, I think we all agree that we should not have to tell an AGI the steps to solving problems. It should learn and figure it out, like the way that people figure it out. *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
Matt, I never said that I did not accept the application of the method of probability, it is just that is has to be applied using logic. Solomonoff Induction does not meet this standard. From this conclusion, and from other sources of information, including the acknowledgement of incomputability and the lack of acceptance in the general mathematical community I feel comfortable with rejecting the theory of Kolomogrov Complexity as well. What I said was: My conclusion suggests, that the use of Solmonoff Induction as an ideal for compression or something like MDL... What you said was: It is sufficient to find the shortest program consistent with past results, not all programs. The difference is no more than the language-dependent constant... This is an equivocation based on the line you were responding to. You are presenting a related comment as if it were a valid response to what I actually said. That is one reason why I am starting to ignore you. Jim Bromer On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: Jim Bromer wrote: The question was asked whether, given infinite resources could Solmonoff Induction work. I made the assumption that it was computable and found that it wouldn't work. On what infinitely powerful computer did you do your experiment? My conclusion suggests, that the use of Solmonoff Induction as an ideal for compression or something like MDL is not only unsubstantiated but based on a massive inability to comprehend the idea of a program that runs every possible program. It is sufficient to find the shortest program consistent with past results, not all programs. The difference is no more than the language-dependent constant. Legg proved this in the paper that Ben and I both pointed you to. Do you dispute his proof? I guess you don't, because you didn't respond the last 3 times this was pointed out to you. I am comfortable with the conclusion that the claim that Solomonoff Induction is an ideal for compression or induction or anything else is pretty shallow and not based on careful consideration. I am comfortable with the conclusion that the world is flat because I have a gut feeling about it and I ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is a chance that I am wrong So why don't you drop it? -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com -- *From:* Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Tue, July 20, 2010 3:10:40 PM *Subject:* Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction The question was asked whether, given infinite resources could Solmonoff Induction work. I made the assumption that it was computable and found that it wouldn't work. It is not computable, even with infinite resources, for the kind of thing that was claimed it would do. (I believe that with a governance program it might actually be programmable) but it could not be used to predict (or compute the probability of) a subsequent string given some prefix string. Not only is the method impractical it is theoretically inane. My conclusion suggests, that the use of Solmonoff Induction as an ideal for compression or something like MDL is not only unsubstantiated but based on a massive inability to comprehend the idea of a program that runs every possible program. I am comfortable with the conclusion that the claim that Solomonoff Induction is an ideal for compression or induction or anything else is pretty shallow and not based on careful consideration. There is a chance that I am wrong, but I am confident that there is nothing in the definition of Solmonoff Induction that could be used to prove it. Jim Bromer *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
I meant this was what I said was: My conclusion suggests, that the use of Solmonoff Induction as an ideal for compression or something like MDL is not only unsubstantiated but based on a massive inability to comprehend the idea of a program that runs every possible program. What Matt said was: It is sufficient to find the shortest program consistent with past results, not all programs. The difference is no more than the language-dependent constant... This is an equivocation based on the line you were responding to. You are presenting a related comment as if it were a valid response to what I actually said. That is one reason why I am starting to ignore you. Jim Bromer On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: Matt, I never said that I did not accept the application of the method of probability, it is just that is has to be applied using logic. Solomonoff Induction does not meet this standard. From this conclusion, and from other sources of information, including the acknowledgement of incomputability and the lack of acceptance in the general mathematical community I feel comfortable with rejecting the theory of Kolomogrov Complexity as well. What I said was: My conclusion suggests, that the use of Solmonoff Induction as an ideal for compression or something like MDL... What you said was: It is sufficient to find the shortest program consistent with past results, not all programs. The difference is no more than the language-dependent constant... This is an equivocation based on the line you were responding to. You are presenting a related comment as if it were a valid response to what I actually said. That is one reason why I am starting to ignore you. Jim Bromer On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.comwrote: Jim Bromer wrote: The question was asked whether, given infinite resources could Solmonoff Induction work. I made the assumption that it was computable and found that it wouldn't work. On what infinitely powerful computer did you do your experiment? My conclusion suggests, that the use of Solmonoff Induction as an ideal for compression or something like MDL is not only unsubstantiated but based on a massive inability to comprehend the idea of a program that runs every possible program. It is sufficient to find the shortest program consistent with past results, not all programs. The difference is no more than the language-dependent constant. Legg proved this in the paper that Ben and I both pointed you to. Do you dispute his proof? I guess you don't, because you didn't respond the last 3 times this was pointed out to you. I am comfortable with the conclusion that the claim that Solomonoff Induction is an ideal for compression or induction or anything else is pretty shallow and not based on careful consideration. I am comfortable with the conclusion that the world is flat because I have a gut feeling about it and I ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is a chance that I am wrong So why don't you drop it? -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com -- *From:* Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com *To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Tue, July 20, 2010 3:10:40 PM *Subject:* Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction The question was asked whether, given infinite resources could Solmonoff Induction work. I made the assumption that it was computable and found that it wouldn't work. It is not computable, even with infinite resources, for the kind of thing that was claimed it would do. (I believe that with a governance program it might actually be programmable) but it could not be used to predict (or compute the probability of) a subsequent string given some prefix string. Not only is the method impractical it is theoretically inane. My conclusion suggests, that the use of Solmonoff Induction as an ideal for compression or something like MDL is not only unsubstantiated but based on a massive inability to comprehend the idea of a program that runs every possible program. I am comfortable with the conclusion that the claim that Solomonoff Induction is an ideal for compression or induction or anything else is pretty shallow and not based on careful consideration. There is a chance that I am wrong, but I am confident that there is nothing in the definition of Solmonoff Induction that could be used to prove it. Jim Bromer *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ --- agi Archives:
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
The fundamental method of Solmonoff Induction is trans-infinite. Suppose you iterate through all possible programs, combining different programs as you go. Then you have an infinite number of possible programs which have a trans-infinite number of combinations, because each tier of combinations can then be recombined to produce a second, third, fourth,... tier of recombinations. Anyone who claims that this method is the ideal for a method of applied probability is unwise. Jim Bromer --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
I should have said, It would be unwise to claim that this method could stand as an ideal for some valid and feasible application of probability. Jim Bromer On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: The fundamental method of Solmonoff Induction is trans-infinite. Suppose you iterate through all possible programs, combining different programs as you go. Then you have an infinite number of possible programs which have a trans-infinite number of combinations, because each tier of combinations can then be recombined to produce a second, third, fourth,... tier of recombinations. Anyone who claims that this method is the ideal for a method of applied probability is unwise. Jim Bromer --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] My Boolean Satisfiability Solver
I haven't made any noteworthy progress on my attempt to create a polynomial time Boolean Satisfiability Solver. I am going to try to explore some more modest means of compressing formulas in a way so that the formula will reveal more about individual combinations (of the Boolean states of the variables that are True or False), through the use of strands which are groups of combinations. So I am not trying to find a polynomial time solution at this point, I am just going through the stuff that I have been thinking of, either explicitly or implicitly during the past few years to see if I can get some means of representing more about a formula in an efficient manner. Jim Bromer --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] My Boolean Satisfiability Solver
But surely a number is a group of binary combinations if we represent the number in binary form, as we always can. The real theorems are those which deal with *numbers*. What you are in essence discussing is no more or less than the *Theory of Numbers.* * * * - Ian Parker * On 21 July 2010 20:17, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't made any noteworthy progress on my attempt to create a polynomial time Boolean Satisfiability Solver. I am going to try to explore some more modest means of compressing formulas in a way so that the formula will reveal more about individual combinations (of the Boolean states of the variables that are True or False), through the use of strands which are groups of combinations. So I am not trying to find a polynomial time solution at this point, I am just going through the stuff that I have been thinking of, either explicitly or implicitly during the past few years to see if I can get some means of representing more about a formula in an efficient manner. Jim Bromer *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] My Boolean Satisfiability Solver
Because a logical system can be applied to a problem, that does not mean that the logical system is the same as the problem. Most notably, the theory of numbers contains definitions that do not belong to logic per se. Jim Bromer On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com wrote: But surely a number is a group of binary combinations if we represent the number in binary form, as we always can. The real theorems are those which deal with *numbers*. What you are in essence discussing is no more or less than the *Theory of Numbers.* * * * - Ian Parker * On 21 July 2010 20:17, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't made any noteworthy progress on my attempt to create a polynomial time Boolean Satisfiability Solver. I am going to try to explore some more modest means of compressing formulas in a way so that the formula will reveal more about individual combinations (of the Boolean states of the variables that are True or False), through the use of strands which are groups of combinations. So I am not trying to find a polynomial time solution at this point, I am just going through the stuff that I have been thinking of, either explicitly or implicitly during the past few years to see if I can get some means of representing more about a formula in an efficient manner. Jim Bromer *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
Jim, This argument that you've got to consider recombinations *in addition to* just the programs displays the lack of mathematical understanding that I am referring to... you appear to be arguing against what you *think* solomonoff induction is, without checking how it is actually defined... --Abram On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: The fundamental method of Solmonoff Induction is trans-infinite. Suppose you iterate through all possible programs, combining different programs as you go. Then you have an infinite number of possible programs which have a trans-infinite number of combinations, because each tier of combinations can then be recombined to produce a second, third, fourth,... tier of recombinations. Anyone who claims that this method is the ideal for a method of applied probability is unwise. Jim Bromer *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Abram Demski http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
You claim that I have not checked how Solomonoff Induction is actually defined, but then don't bother mentioning how it is defined as if it would be too much of an ordeal to even begin to try. It is this kind of evasive response, along with the fact that these functions are incomputable, that make your replies so absurd. On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote: Jim, This argument that you've got to consider recombinations *in addition to* just the programs displays the lack of mathematical understanding that I am referring to... you appear to be arguing against what you *think* solomonoff induction is, without checking how it is actually defined... --Abram On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: The fundamental method of Solmonoff Induction is trans-infinite. Suppose you iterate through all possible programs, combining different programs as you go. Then you have an infinite number of possible programs which have a trans-infinite number of combinations, because each tier of combinations can then be recombined to produce a second, third, fourth,... tier of recombinations. Anyone who claims that this method is the ideal for a method of applied probability is unwise. Jim Bromer *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ -- Abram Demski http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] My Boolean Satisfiability Solver
Well, Boolean Logic may be a part of number theory but even then it is still not the same as number theory. On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: Because a logical system can be applied to a problem, that does not mean that the logical system is the same as the problem. Most notably, the theory of numbers contains definitions that do not belong to logic per se. Jim Bromer On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com wrote: But surely a number is a group of binary combinations if we represent the number in binary form, as we always can. The real theorems are those which deal with *numbers*. What you are in essence discussing is no more or less than the *Theory of Numbers.* * * * - Ian Parker * On 21 July 2010 20:17, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't made any noteworthy progress on my attempt to create a polynomial time Boolean Satisfiability Solver. I am going to try to explore some more modest means of compressing formulas in a way so that the formula will reveal more about individual combinations (of the Boolean states of the variables that are True or False), through the use of strands which are groups of combinations. So I am not trying to find a polynomial time solution at this point, I am just going through the stuff that I have been thinking of, either explicitly or implicitly during the past few years to see if I can get some means of representing more about a formula in an efficient manner. Jim Bromer *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] My Boolean Satisfiability Solver
The Theory of Numbers as its name implies about numbers. Advanced Theory of Number is also about things like Elliptic Functions, Modular functions, Polynomials, Symmetry groups, the Riemann hypothesis. What I am saying is I can express *ANY* numerical problem in binary form. I can use numbers, expressible in any base to define the above. Logic is in fact expressible if we take numbers of modulus 1, but that is another story. You do not have to express all of logic in terms of the Theory of Numbers. I am claiming that the Theory of Numbers, and all its advanced ramifications are expressible in terms of logic. - Ian Parker On 21 July 2010 21:01, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: Because a logical system can be applied to a problem, that does not mean that the logical system is the same as the problem. Most notably, the theory of numbers contains definitions that do not belong to logic per se. Jim Bromer On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com wrote: But surely a number is a group of binary combinations if we represent the number in binary form, as we always can. The real theorems are those which deal with *numbers*. What you are in essence discussing is no more or less than the *Theory of Numbers.* * * * - Ian Parker * On 21 July 2010 20:17, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't made any noteworthy progress on my attempt to create a polynomial time Boolean Satisfiability Solver. I am going to try to explore some more modest means of compressing formulas in a way so that the formula will reveal more about individual combinations (of the Boolean states of the variables that are True or False), through the use of strands which are groups of combinations. So I am not trying to find a polynomial time solution at this point, I am just going through the stuff that I have been thinking of, either explicitly or implicitly during the past few years to see if I can get some means of representing more about a formula in an efficient manner. Jim Bromer *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] My Boolean Satisfiability Solver
If I can express Arithmetic in logical terms it must be. - Ian Parker On 21 July 2010 21:38, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: Well, Boolean Logic may be a part of number theory but even then it is still not the same as number theory. On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: Because a logical system can be applied to a problem, that does not mean that the logical system is the same as the problem. Most notably, the theory of numbers contains definitions that do not belong to logic per se. Jim Bromer On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com wrote: But surely a number is a group of binary combinations if we represent the number in binary form, as we always can. The real theorems are those which deal with *numbers*. What you are in essence discussing is no more or less than the *Theory of Numbers.* * * * - Ian Parker * On 21 July 2010 20:17, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't made any noteworthy progress on my attempt to create a polynomial time Boolean Satisfiability Solver. I am going to try to explore some more modest means of compressing formulas in a way so that the formula will reveal more about individual combinations (of the Boolean states of the variables that are True or False), through the use of strands which are groups of combinations. So I am not trying to find a polynomial time solution at this point, I am just going through the stuff that I have been thinking of, either explicitly or implicitly during the past few years to see if I can get some means of representing more about a formula in an efficient manner. Jim Bromer *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote: Jim, This argument that you've got to consider recombinations *in addition to* just the programs displays the lack of mathematical understanding that I am referring to... you appear to be arguing against what you *think* solomonoff induction is, without checking how it is actually defined... --Abram I mean this in a friendly way. (When I started to write in a fiendly way, it was only a typo and nothing more.) Is it possible that it is Abram who doesn't understand how Solomonoff Induction is actually defined. Is it possible that it is Abram who has missed an implication of the defiinition because it didn't fit in with his ideal of a convenient and reasonable application of Bayesian mathematics? I am just saying that you should ask yourself this: is it possible that Abram doesn't see the obvious flaws because it obviously wouldn't make any sense vis a vis a reasonable and sound application of probability theory. For example, would you be willing to write to a real expert in probability theory to ask him for his opinions on Solomonoff Induction? Because I would be. Jim Bromer On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote: Jim, This argument that you've got to consider recombinations *in addition to* just the programs displays the lack of mathematical understanding that I am referring to... you appear to be arguing against what you *think* solomonoff induction is, without checking how it is actually defined... --Abram On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: The fundamental method of Solmonoff Induction is trans-infinite. Suppose you iterate through all possible programs, combining different programs as you go. Then you have an infinite number of possible programs which have a trans-infinite number of combinations, because each tier of combinations can then be recombined to produce a second, third, fourth,... tier of recombinations. Anyone who claims that this method is the ideal for a method of applied probability is unwise. Jim Bromer *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ -- Abram Demski http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
I can't say where you are going wrong because I really have no idea. However, my guess is that you are ignoring certain contingencies that would be necessary to make your claims valid. I tried to use a reference to the theory of limits to explain this but it seemed to fall on deaf ears. If I were to write everything I knew about Bernoulli without looking it up, it would be a page of few facts. I have read some things about him, I just don't recall much of it. So when I dare say that Abram couldn't write much about Cauchy without looking it up, it is not a pretentious put down, but more like a last-ditch effort to teach him some basic humility. Jim Bromer --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
If someone had a profound knowledge of Solomonoff Induction and the *science of probability* he could at the very least talk to me in a way that I knew he knew what I was talking about and I knew he knew what he was talking about. He might be slightly obnoxious or he might be casual or (more likely) he would try to be patient. But it is unlikely that he would use a hit and run attack and denounce my conjectures without taking the opportunity to talk to me about what I was saying. That is one of the ways that I know that you don't know as much as you think you know. You rarely get angry about being totally right. A true expert would be able to talk to me and also take advantage of my thinking about the subject to weave some new information into the conversation so that I could leave it with a greater insight about the problem than I did before. That is not just a skill that only good teachers have, it is a skill that almost any expert can develop if he is willing to use it. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction
Jim Bromer wrote: The fundamental method of Solmonoff Induction is trans-infinite. The fundamental method is that the probability of a string x is proportional to the sum of all programs M that output x weighted by 2^-|M|. That probability is dominated by the shortest program, but it is equally uncomputable either way. How does this approximation invalidate Solomonoff induction? Also, please point me to this mathematical community that you claim rejects Solomonoff induction. Can you find even one paper that refutes it? -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Wed, July 21, 2010 3:08:13 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Comments On My Skepticism of Solomonoff Induction I should have said, It would be unwise to claim that this method could stand as an ideal for some valid and feasible application of probability. Jim Bromer On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote: The fundamental method of Solmonoff Induction is trans-infinite. Suppose you iterate through all possible programs, combining different programs as you go. Then you have an infinite number of possible programs which have a trans-infinite number of combinations, because each tier of combinations can then be recombined to produce a second, third, fourth,... tier of recombinations. Anyone who claims that this method is the ideal for a method of applied probability is unwise. Jim Bromer agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
