On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM, David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> wrote: > But, that's why it is important to force oneself to solve them in such a way > that it IS applicable to AGI. It doesn't mean that you have to choose a > problem that is so hard you can't cheat. It's unnecessary to do that unless > you can't control your desire to cheat. I can.
That would be relevant if it was entirely a problem of willpower and self-discipline, but it isn't. It's also a problem of guidance. A real problem gives you feedback at every step of the way, it keeps blowing your ideas out of the water until you come up with one that will actually work, that you would never have thought of in a vacuum. A toy problem leaves you guessing, and most of your guesses will be wrong in ways you won't know about until you come to try a real problem and realize you have to throw all your work away. Conversely, a toy problem doesn't make your initial job that much easier. It means you have to write less code, sure, but what of it? That was only ever the lesser difficulty. The main reason toy problems are easier is that you can use lower grade methods that could never scale up to real problems -- in other words, precisely that you can 'cheat'. But if you aren't going to cheat, you're sacrificing most of the ease of a toy problem, while also sacrificing the priceless feedback from a real problem -- the worst of both worlds. ------------------------------------------- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
