Yeah, we use Occam's razor heuristics in Novamente, and they are commonly used throughout AI. For instance in evolutionary program learning one uses a "parsimony pressure" which automatically rates smaller program trees as more fit...
ben On Nov 8, 2007 12:21 PM, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BEN>>>> However, the current form of AIXI-related math theory gives zero > guidance regarding how to make a practical AGI. > ED>>>> Legg's Solomonoff Induction paper did suggest some down and dirty > hacks, such as Occam's razor. It woud seem a Novamente-class machine could > do a quick backward chaining of preconditions and their probabilities to > guestimate probabilities. That would be a rough function of a complexity > measure. But actually it wold be something much better because it would be > concerned not only with the complexity of elements and/or sub-events and > their relationships but also so their probabilities and that of their > relationships. > > Edward W. Porter > Porter & Associates > 24 String Bridge S12 > Exeter, NH 03833 > (617) 494-1722 > Fax (617) 494-1822 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Benjamin Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:52 AM > *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com > *Subject:* Re: [agi] How valuable is Solmononoff Induction for real world > AGI? > > BEN>>>> [referring the Vlad's statement that about AIXI's > > uncomputability]"Now now, it doesn't require infinite resources -- the > > AIXItl variant of AIXI only requires an insanely massive amount of > > resources, more than would be feasible in the physical universe, but not an > > infinite amount ;-) " > > > > ED>>>> So, from a practical standpoint, which is all I really care > > about, is it a dead end? > > > > "Dead end" would be too strong IMO, though others might disagree. > > However, the current form of AIXI-related math theory gives zero guidance > regarding how to make a practical AGI. To get practical guidance out of > that theory would require some additional, extremely profound math > breakthroughs, radically different in character from the theory as it exists > right now. This could happen. I'm not counting on it, and I've decided not > to spend time working on it personally, as fascinating as the subject area > is to me. > > > > Also, do you, or anybody know, if Solmononoff (the only way I can > > remember the name is "Soul man on off" like Otis Redding with a microphone > > problem) Induction have the ability of deal with deep forms of non-literal > > similarity matching in is complexity calculations. And is so how? And if > > not, isn't it brain dead? And if it is a brain dead why is such a bright > > guy as Shane Legg spending his time on it. > > > > Solomonoff induction is mentally all-powerful. But it requires infinitely > much computational resources to achieve this ubermentality. > > -- Ben G > ------------------------------ > 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/?&; > ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=62945314-e0a234
