On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But it can just work with a static corpus. When you need to figure out >> efficient learning, you only need to know a little about the overall >> structure of your data (which can be described by a reasonably small >> number of exemplars), you don't need much of the data itself. > > Why do you think that? All the evidence is to the contrary - the > examples we have of figuring out efficient learning, from evolution to > childhood play to formal education and training to science to hardward > and software engineering, do not work with just a static corpus. >
It is not evidence. Evidence is an indication that depends on the referred event: evidence is there when referred event is there, but evidence is not there when refereed event is absent. What would you expect to see, depending on correctness of your assumption? Literally, it translates to animals having a phase where they sit cross-legged and meditate on accumulated evidence, until they gain enlightenment, become extremely efficient learners and launch Singularity... Evolution just didn't figure it out, just like it didn't figure out transistors, and had to work with legacy 100Hz neurons. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- 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=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
