As I stated earlier, the fact that there is normal variation in human language models makes it easier for a machine to pass the Turing test. However, a machine with a lossless model will still outperform one with a lossy model because the lossless model has more knowledge.
I agree it is important to understand how the human brain filters information (lossy compression), especially vision and hearing. This does not change the fact that lossless compression is the right way to evaluate a language model. A lossy model cannot be evaluated objectively. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ---- From: Philip Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 12:31:06 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Lossy *&* lossless compressio On 8/20/06, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The argument for lossy vs. lossless compression as a test for AI seems to be > motivated by the fact that humans use lossy compression to store memory, and > cannot do lossless compression at all. The reason is that lossless > compression requires the ability to do deterministic computation. Lossy > compression does not. So this distinction is not important for machines. No; the main argument is that lossy compression allows the use of much, much more sophisticated, and much, much more powerful compression algorithms, achieving much higher compression ratios. Also, lossless compression is already nearly as good as it can be. Statistical methods will probably out-perform intelligent methods on lossless compression, especially if the size of the compressor is included. > The proof that an ideal language model implies passing the Turing test > requires a lossless model. A lossy model has only partial knowledge of the > distribution of strings in natural language dialogs. Without full > knowledge, it is not possible to duplicate the same distribution of > equivalent representations of the same idea, allowing such expressions to be > recognized as not human, even if the compression is ideal. By this argument, no human can pass the Turing test, since none of us have the same distributions, either. Or perhaps just one human can pass it. Presumably Turing. You will never, never, never, never recreate the same exact language model in a computer as resides in any particular human. Losslessness is relevant only when you need to recreate it exactly, and you can't, so it's irrelevant. ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
