--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmmmm...  I think my point may have gotten lost in the confusion here.
> 
> What I was trying to say was *suppose* I produced an AGI design that 
> used pretty much the same principles as those that operate in the human 
> cognitive system (non-determinism and all).
> 
> Under those circumstances, your test would fail to classify it as an AGI 
> even though it clearly would be an AGI.
> 
> Doesn't that make the test useless?

Only if you insist on using nondeterministic hardware.  But why would you do
that?

> In particular I don't understand why you say:
> 
>  > I can give you 6 billion more examples that would fail...
> 
> Are you trying to imply that humans are not good enough to qualify as 
> intelligent?

No, only that humans can't compress.


-- 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

Reply via email to