> It seems to me that this answer *assumes* that Hutter's work is completely > right, an assumption in conflict with the uneasiness you express in your > previous email.
It's "right" as mathematics... I don't think his definition of intelligence is the maximally useful one, though I think it's a reasonably OK one. I have proposed a different but related definition of intelligence, before, and have not been entirely satisfied with my own definition, either. I like mine better than Hutter's... but I have not proved any cool theorems about mine... > If Novamente can do something AIXI cannot, then Hutter's > work is very highly valuable because it provides a benchmark against which > this becomes clear. > > If you intuitively feel that Novamente has something AIXI doesn't, then > Hutter's work is very highly valuable whether your feeling proves correct > or not, because it's by comparing Novamente against AIXI that you'll learn > what this valuable thing really *is*. This holds true whether the answer > turns out to be "It's capability X that I didn't previously really know > how to build, and hence didn't see as obviously lacking in AIXI" or "It's > capability X that I didn't previously really know how to build, and > hence didn't see as obviously emerging from AIXI". > > So do you still feel that Hutter's work tells you nothing of any use? Well, it hasn't so far. It may in the future. If it does I'll say so ;-) The thing is, I (like many others) thought of algorithms equivalent to AIXI years ago, and dismissed them as useless. What I didn't do is prove anything about these algorithms, I just thought of them and ignored them.... Partly because I didn't see how to prove the theorems, and partly because I thought even once I proved the theorems, I wouldn't have anything pragmatically useful... -- Ben ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
