> Brad wrote: > > I think this is a core principle of AGI design and that a system that > > only makes inferences it *knows* are correct would be fairly > > uninteresting and incapable of performing in the real world. The fact > > that the information in the P(xi|xj) list is very incomplete is what > > makes the problem interesting. > > > > Or maybe I'm misinterpreting your intent. > > > I agree perfectly with your "core principle", and my proposal was not to > only make inferences that you know are correct. I think you may be > misinterpreting: lets say that we know P(Xi), and want to guess > at P(Xi|Xj). > We have insufficient knowledge, so we need to make some assumptions to > approximate P(Xi|Xj). I argue that under these circumstances, the best > assumption to make is that Xi and Xj are independent, (ie, > P(Xi|Xj)=P(Xi)). > Does this clarify things? > > Moshe
Moshe: your approach is conceptually quite right Empirically, however, making a bunch of iterated independence assumptions on a large body of knowledge, can rapidly lead to nonsense conclusions, especially if one allows any conclusion-based premise correction (not really needed in the rectangles test). One lesson is that to have reliable inferences one wants to spend a LOT of time seeking dependency information, because while each individual independence assumption only adds a little error on average, the errors can really pile up in an iterated inference context. -- Ben G ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
