It occurs to me the problem I'm having with this definition of AI as compression. There are two different tasks here, recognition of "sensory" data and reproduction of it. It sounds like this definition proposes that they are exactly equivalent, or that any recognition system is automatically invertable. I simply doubt that this can be true, using a principle (I have no proof for but I hold) that "meaning"--something we use to recognize equivalence-- is just not the same for different peceptual events.
An another example I use to think about it is how difficult it is trying to draw a reproduction of a picture from memory, and how different the task is from drawing a copy is from analyzing the elements in a picture. Reproducing visual information is different from conceptual scene decomposition. On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:45:04 -0700 (PDT), Matt Mahoney wrote > --- Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3. Standing [3] had subject memorize 10,000 pictures, one every 5.6 seconds > > over 5 days. Two days later they could recall about 80% in tests. This is > > about the result you would get if you reduced each picture to a 16 bit > > feature > > vector and checked for matches. This is a memory rate of 0.3 bits per > > second. > > That should be 3 bits per second. > > -- 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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
