I don't think Solomonoff induction is a particularly useful direction for AI, I was just taking issue with the statement made that it is not capable of correct prediction given adequate resources...
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 11:35 AM, David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> wrote: > Although I haven't studied Solomonoff induction yet, although I plan to > read up on it, I've realized that people seem to be making the same mistake > I was. People are trying to find one silver bullet method of induction or > learning that works for everything. I've begun to realize that its OK if > something doesn't work for everything. As long as it works on a large enough > subset of problems to be useful. If you can figure out how to construct > justifiable methods of induction for enough problems that you need to solve, > then that is sufficient for AGI. > > This is the same mistake I made and it was the point I was trying to make > in the recent email I sent. I kept trying to come up with algorithms for > doing things and I could always find a test case to break it. So, now I've > begun to realize that it's ok if it breaks sometimes! The question is, can > you define an algorithm that breaks gracefully and which can figure out what > problems it can be applied to and what problems it should not be applied to. > If you can do that, then you can solve the problems where it is applicable, > and avoid the problems where it is not. > > This is perfectly OK! You don't have to find a silver bullet method of > induction or inference that works for everything! > > Dave > > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org> wrote: > >> >> To make this discussion more concrete, please look at >> >> http://www.vetta.org/documents/disSol.pdf >> >> Section 2.5 gives a simple version of the proof that Solomonoff induction >> is a powerful learning algorithm in principle, and Section 2.6 explains why >> it is not practically useful. >> >> What part of that paper do you think is wrong? >> >> thx >> ben >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org> wrote: >>> >>> If you're going to argue against a mathematical theorem, your argument >>> must be mathematical not verbal. Please explain one of >>> >>> 1) which step in the proof about Solomonoff induction's effectiveness you >>> believe is in error >>> >>> 2) which of the assumptions of this proof you think is inapplicable to >>> real intelligence [apart from the assumption of infinite or massive compute >>> resources] >>> -------------------------------- >>> >>> Solomonoff Induction is not a provable Theorem, it is therefore a >>> conjecture. It cannot be computed, it cannot be verified. There are many >>> mathematical theorems that require the use of limits to "prove" them for >>> example, and I accept those proofs. (Some people might not.) But there is >>> no evidence that Solmonoff Induction would tend toward some limits. Now >>> maybe the conjectured abstraction can be verified through some other means, >>> but I have yet to see an adequate explanation of that in any terms. The >>> idea that I have to answer your challenges using only the terms you specify >>> is noise. >>> >>> Look at 2. What does that say about your "Theorem". >>> >>> I am working on 1 but I just said: "I haven't yet been able to find a way >>> that could be used to prove that Solomonoff Induction does not do what Matt >>> claims it does." >>> Z >>> What is not clear is that no one has objected to my characterization of >>> the conjecture as I have been able to work it out for myself. It requires >>> an infinite set of infinitely computed probabilities of each infinite >>> "string". If this characterization is correct, then Matt has been using the >>> term "string" ambiguously. As a primary sample space: A particular string. >>> And as a compound sample space: All the possible individual cases of the >>> substring compounded into one. No one has yet to tell of his "mathematical" >>> experiments of using a Turing simulator to see what a finite iteration of >>> all possible programs of a given length would actually look like. >>> >>> I will finish this later. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Abram, >>>>> Solomoff Induction would produce poor "predictions" if it could be used >>>>> to compute them. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Solomonoff induction is a mathematical, not verbal, construct. Based on >>>> the most obvious mapping from the verbal terms you've used above into >>>> mathematical definitions in terms of which Solomonoff induction is >>>> constructed, the above statement of yours is FALSE. >>>> >>>> If you're going to argue against a mathematical theorem, your argument >>>> must be mathematical not verbal. Please explain one of >>>> >>>> 1) which step in the proof about Solomonoff induction's effectiveness >>>> you believe is in error >>>> >>>> 2) which of the assumptions of this proof you think is inapplicable to >>>> real intelligence [apart from the assumption of infinite or massive compute >>>> resources] >>>> >>>> Otherwise, your statement is in the same category as the statement by >>>> the protagonist of Dostoesvky's "Notes from the Underground" -- >>>> >>>> "I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we >>>> are to give everything its due, two times two makes five is sometimes a >>>> very >>>> charming thing too." >>>> >>>> ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Secondly, since it cannot be computed it is useless. Third, it is not >>>>> the sort of thing that is useful for AGI in the first place. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with these two statements >>>> >>>> -- ben G >>>> >>>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >>>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com/> >>>> >>> >>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com/> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ben Goertzel, PhD >> CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC >> CTO, Genescient Corp >> Vice Chairman, Humanity+ >> Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute >> External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China >> b...@goertzel.org >> >> " >> “When nothing seems to help, I go look at a stonecutter hammering away at >> his rock, perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. >> Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was >> not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before.” >> >> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com/> >> > > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC CTO, Genescient Corp Vice Chairman, Humanity+ Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute External Research Professor, Xiamen University, China b...@goertzel.org " “When nothing seems to help, I go look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock, perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before.” ------------------------------------------- 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
