--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt Mahoney wrote: > > --- 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? > > Why do you ask? It makes no difference. The point is that your test is > meaningless because of the fact that it doesn't work for one class of > AGI systems. > > As it happens, there are reasons for wanting to do it that way, and > there may well be reasons why the "deterministic" way of building an AGI > is for all practical purposes impossible. Under those circumstances, > all this talk of compression tests is just so much fantasy. > > But, to reiterate, I don't need those further tests to make my case: > the mere fact that a perfectly functional AGI system would be classified > by your test as being not an AGI is enough to make the test a failure. > > > Richard Loosemore.
Isn't the fact that most of the available computing power on the Internet is running on deterministic hardware enough reason to implement a deterministic AGI. Or do you have an analog computer in mind, like growing brains in bottles or something? -- 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
