On 11/2/02 9:29 AM, "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think there *is* a "general problem of intelligence", and it's an
> unsolvable problem unless one has infinite computational resources.

I don't follow this.  What does infinite computational resources have to do
with it?

> Suppose we conceive intelligence as "the ability to achieve complex goals in
> complex environments."
> With finite computational resources there are always going to be some
> complex goals that one can achieve better than others....

This is the "jack of all trades, ace of none" problem.  But a properly
designed generally intelligent system should be adaptive enough that it can
become highly tuned to solving specific classes of problems if that is what
it is faced with on a regular basis.  Just like people.

> Hutter and Schmidhuber's mathematical approach to general intelligence
> basically verifies this idea, in a more formal & theoretical way...

I continue to like and follow their work, with some reservations.  My
reservations mostly are of the nature that some implicit assumptions are
made without qualification that I can state for a fact should be
substantially different from the essential implied qualification.  Its great
stuff, just subtly misleading in certain respects in that it causes you to
ignore things that should be looked at more critically.

Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to talk about this (or a number of other
things for that matter) in detail or I would.  I apologize if I can't fully
explain some of the assertions I might make.  Arrgh.  :-/


-James Rogers

To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, 
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/

Reply via email to