On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "Kingma, D.P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Vector graphics can indeed be communicated to an AGI by relatively > > low-bandwidth textual input. But, unfortunately, > > the physical world is not made of vector graphics, so reducing the > > physical world to vector graphics is quite lossy (and computationally > > expensive an sich). > > Huh? Intelligence is based upon lossyness and the ability to lose rarely > relevant (probably incorrect) outlier information is frequently the key to > making problems tractable (though it can also set you up for failure when > you miss a phase transition by mistaking it for just an odd outlier :-) > since it forms the basis of discovery by analogy. > > Matt Mahoney's failure to recognize this has him trapped in *exact* > compression hell. ;-)
Agreed with that, exact compression is not the way to go if you ask me. But that doesn't mean any lossy method is OK. Converting a scene to vector graphics will lead you to throwing away much visual information early in the process: visual information (e.g. texture) that might be useful later in the process (for e.g. disambiguation). I'm not stating a vector description is not useful: I'm stating that information is thrown away that could have been used to construct an essential part of a world model that understands physical entities down to the level of e.g. textures. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
