[Spelling corrected and reworded...]

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. First, the way individuals store
audiovisual information differs, simply because of slight differences in
brain development (nurture). Also, memory is condensed information about the
actual high-level sensory/experience information. The actual 45kb memory of
a movie is therefore quite personal to the subject. Recall of a photo/video
is more like an impressionistic painting then an actual photo.

An AGI that reconstructs a movie from 45kb human-ish compressed memory will
have to make up 99.99% of video and audio. A very educated guess, but still
a guess.

Compare it with an extremely talented photorealistic animator human that,
purely from memory, creates a reconstruction of a scene from The Matrix.
Wouldn't you notice the difference in experience?


On 4/18/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 4/17/07, James Ratcliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A simple list, or set of goals for an AGI to accomplish reasonably I
would
> find very useful, and something to work for.

I think an important goal is to solve the user interface problem.  The
current
approach is for the computer to present a menu of choices (e.g. a set of
icons, or automated voicemail "press or say 'one'"), which is hardly
satisfactory.  An interface should be more like Google.  I tell the
computer
what I want and it gets it for me.

In http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/rationale.html I argue the
equivalence of text compression with AI.  I would therefore set a goal of
matching humans at text prediction (about 1 bit per character).  Humans
use
vast knowledge and reasoning to predict strings like "All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.  Therefore ____".  An AGI should be able to make
predictions as accurately as humans given only a 1 GB corpus of text,
about
what a human could read in 20+ years.

I would go further and include lossy compression tests.  In theory, you
could
compress speech to 10 bits per second by converting it to text and using
text
compression.  The rate at which the human brain can remember video is not
much
greater, probably less than 50 bps*.  Therefore, as a goal, an AGI ought
to be
able to compress a 2 hour movie to a 45 KB file, such that when a person
views
the original and reconstructed movie on consecutive days (not side by
side),
the viewer will not notice any differences.  It should be able to do this
after training on 20 years of video.

The purpose of this goal is that such an AGI could also perform useful
tasks
such as reduce a video to a verbal description understandable by humans,
or
given a script, produce a movie.  These tasks would be trivial extensions
of
the compression process, which would probably consist of describing a
movie
using text and augmenting with some nonverbal data such as descriptions of
faces and voices in terms that humans cannot easily express.

*50 bps is probably high.  Tests of image recall by Standing [1] suggest
that
a picture viewed for 5 seconds is worth about 30 bits.

[1] Standing, L. (1973), "Learning 10,000 Pictures", Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology (25) pp. 207-222.


-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;


-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936

Reply via email to