Boris Kazachenko wrote: > From: "Alan Grimes: >> Boris Kazachenko wrote: >>> in just about everyone here, yourself including. Your "pegs & holes" >>> suggestion is truly Mike-worthy. Yes, a GI must be able to do it, no, >>> doing it is not an indication of possessing GI. Designing algorithms >>> that can do simple things is an obsession of simple minds, - the kind >>> that can't be bothered with generality & scalability.
>> "Simple" problems are precisely the problems that computers have the >> most trouble with. =P >> If my example is so simple, then go ahead and implement it and >> demonstrate how simple it is. ;) > You don't get it. > If my algorithm does your pegs & holes because I specifically designed > it to do so, then the success won't tell you anything about its ability > to scale beyond that. true. That was not my claim. My claim was that a rote solution would be non-trivial. > And if it does so as a trivial side-effect of general learning, then I > won't be posting here. > My point is, if you need "evidence" (that is, can't evaluate an approach > theoretically), then you are a crackpot, in GI terms. Theory is nice but you don't really start dumping bullshit overboard until the rubber hits the road. -- E T F N H E D E D Powers are not rights. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
