Wednesday, February 12, 2003, 12:00:56 AM, Shane Legg wrote: SL> Yes, if the universe is not "somehow predicatble" in the sense of SL> being "compressible" then the AI will be screwed. It doesn't have SL> to be prefectly predictable; it just can't be random noise.
Thanks for your responses. Some more questions: So "Solomonoff induction", whatever that precisely is, depends on a somehow compressible universe. Do the AIXI theorems *prove* something along those lines about our universe, or do they *assume* a compressible universe (i.e. do they state "IF the universe is somehow compressible, these algorithms (given infinite resources) can figure out how)? Assuming the latter, does that mean that there is a "mathematical definition of 'pattern'"? As I stated I'm not a math head, but with what little knowledge I have I find it hard to imagine "pattern" as a definable entity, somehow. To get down to cases: >> I should add, the example you gave is what raised my questions: it >> seems to me an essentially untrainable case because it presents a >> *non-repeatable* scenario. SL> In what sense is it untrainable? The system learns to win at chess. SL> It then start getting punished for winning and switches to losing. SL> I don't see what the problem is. OK, let's say you reward it for winning during the first 100 games, then punish it for winning / reward it for losing during the next 100, reward it for winning the next 100, etc. Can it perceive that pattern? Given infinite resources, could it determine that I am deciding to punish or reward a win based on a pseudo-random (65536-cyclic or whatever it's called) random number generator? And if the "compressibility of the Universe" is an assumption, is there a way we might want to clarify such an assumption, i.e., aren't there numerical values that attach to the *likelihood* of gravity suddenly reversing direction; numerical values attaching to the likelihood of physical phenomena which spontaneously negate like the chess-reward pattern; etc.? In fact -- would the chess-reward pattern's unpredictability *itself* be an indication of life? I.e., doesn't Ockham's razor fail in the case of, and possibly *only* in the case of, conscious beings*? -- Cliff *I can elaborate on this if necessary. ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
