The value of AIXI is not that it tells us how to solve AGI. The value is that it tells us intelligence is not computable.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Fri, 10/24/08, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [agi] If your AGI can't learn to play chess it is no AGI To: [email protected] Date: Friday, October 24, 2008, 9:51 AM >> E.g. according to this, AIXI (with infinite computational power) but not AIXItl >> would have general intelligence, because the latter can only find regularities >> expressible using programs of length bounded by l and runtime bounded >> by t <rant> I hate AIXI because not only does it have infinite computational power but people also unconsciously assume that it has infinite data (or, at least, sufficient data to determine *everything*). AIXI is *not* a general intelligence by any definition that I would use. It is omniscient and need only be a GLUT (giant look-up table) and I argue that that is emphatically *NOT* intelligence. AIXI may have the problem-solving capabilities of general intelligence but does not operate under the constraints that *DEFINE* a general intelligence. If it had to operate under those constraints, it would fail, fail, fail. AIXI is useful for determining limits but horrible for drawing other types of conclusions about GI. </rant> ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Goertzel To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 5:02 AM Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] If your AGI can't learn to play chess it is no AGI On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:09 AM, Dr. Matthias Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No Mike. AGI must be able to discover regularities of all kind in all domains. If you can find a single domain where your AGI fails, it is no AGI. According to this definition **no finite computational system can be an AGI**, so this is definition obviously overly strong for any practical purposes E.g. according to this, AIXI (with infinite computational power) but not AIXItl would have general intelligence, because the latter can only find regularities expressible using programs of length bounded by l and runtime bounded by t Unfortunately, the pragmatic notion of AGI we need to use as researchers is not as simple as the above ... but fortunately, it's more achievable ;-) One could view the pragmatic task of AGI as being able to discover all regularities expressible as programs with length bounded by l and runtime bounded by t ... [and one can add a restriction about the resources used to make this discover], but the thing is, this depends highly on the underlying computational model, which then can be used to encode some significant "domain bias." -- Ben G agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
