On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think my criticism of Hutter's theorem may not have been that > strong. I do think that Hutter's theorem may shed some light on why > the problem is difficult. More importantly it helps us to think > outside the box. For instance, it might be the case that an effective > AI program cannot be completely defined. It might need to be > constantly changing, in that the program itself can never be defined. > I am not saying that is the case, just that it is a possibility. > > But, in one sense a general AI program is not going to typically halt. > It just keeps going until someone shuts it off. So perhaps the > halting problem is fly in the ointment. On the other hand, the > halting problem does hinge around the question whether a function can > be defined, and this issue is most definitely relevant to the problem. > > Whether or not an effective AGI program can be defined is not a > feasible present-day computational problem. So in that sense the > halting problem is relevant. The question of whether or not an AGI > program is feasible is a problem for higher intelligence, not present > day computer intelligence. >
Was this text even supposed to be coherent? -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- 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=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
