RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
If the agents were p-zombies or just not conscious they would have different motivations. Consciousness has properties of communication protocol and effects inter-agent communication. The idea being it enhances agents' existence and survival. I assume it facilitates collective intelligence, generally. For a multi-agent system with a goal of compression or prediction the agent consciousness would have to be catered. So introducing - Consciousness of X is: the idea or feeling that X is correlated with Consciousness of X to the agents would give them more glue if they expended that consciousness on one another. The communications dynamics of the system would change verses a similar non-conscious multi-agent system. John From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:b...@goertzel.org] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 2:30 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark Consciousness of X is: the idea or feeling that X is correlated with Consciousness of X ;-) ben g On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Mon, 12/29/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: What does consciousness have to do with the rest of your argument? Multi-agent systems should need individual consciousness to achieve advanced levels of collective intelligence. So if you are programming a multi-agent system, potentially a compressor, having consciousness in the agents could have an intelligence amplifying effect instead of having non-conscious agents. Or some sort of primitive consciousness component since higher level consciousness has not really been programmed yet. Agree? No. What do you mean by consciousness? Some people use consciousness and intelligence interchangeably. If that is the case, then you are just using a circular argument. If not, then what is the difference? -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
John, So if consciousness is important for compression, then I suggest you write two compression programs, one conscious and one not, and see which one compresses better. Otherwise, this is nonsense. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com --- On Tue, 12/30/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: From: John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com Subject: RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 9:46 AM If the agents were p-zombies or just not conscious they would have different motivations. Consciousness has properties of communication protocol and effects inter-agent communication. The idea being it enhances agents' existence and survival. I assume it facilitates collective intelligence, generally. For a multi-agent system with a goal of compression or prediction the agent consciousness would have to be catered. So introducing - Consciousness of X is: the idea or feeling that X is correlated with Consciousness of X to the agents would give them more glue if they expended that consciousness on one another. The communications dynamics of the system would change verses a similar non-conscious multi-agent system. John From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:b...@goertzel.org] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 2:30 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark Consciousness of X is: the idea or feeling that X is correlated with Consciousness of X ;-) ben g On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Mon, 12/29/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: What does consciousness have to do with the rest of your argument? Multi-agent systems should need individual consciousness to achieve advanced levels of collective intelligence. So if you are programming a multi-agent system, potentially a compressor, having consciousness in the agents could have an intelligence amplifying effect instead of having non-conscious agents. Or some sort of primitive consciousness component since higher level consciousness has not really been programmed yet. Agree? No. What do you mean by consciousness? Some people use consciousness and intelligence interchangeably. If that is the case, then you are just using a circular argument. If not, then what is the difference? -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
The main point being consciousness effects multi-agent collective intelligence. Theoretically it could be used to improve a goal of compression since compression and intelligence are related though compression seems more narrow, or attempting to compress that is. Either way this is not nonsense. Contemporary compression has yet to get very close to max theoretical so exploring the space of potential mechanisms, especially intelligence related facets like consciousness and multi-agent consciousness can be potential candidates for a new hack? I think though that attempting to get close to max compression is not as related to a goal of an efficient compression... John From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:47 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark John, So if consciousness is important for compression, then I suggest you write two compression programs, one conscious and one not, and see which one compresses better. Otherwise, this is nonsense. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com --- On Tue, 12/30/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: From: John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com Subject: RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 9:46 AM If the agents were p-zombies or just not conscious they would have different motivations. Consciousness has properties of communication protocol and effects inter-agent communication. The idea being it enhances agents' existence and survival. I assume it facilitates collective intelligence, generally. For a multi-agent system with a goal of compression or prediction the agent consciousness would have to be catered. So introducing - Consciousness of X is: the idea or feeling that X is correlated with Consciousness of X to the agents would give them more glue if they expended that consciousness on one another. The communications dynamics of the system would change verses a similar non-conscious multi-agent system. John From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:b...@goertzel.org] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 2:30 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark Consciousness of X is: the idea or feeling that X is correlated with Consciousness of X ;-) ben g On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Matt Mahoney mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Mon, 12/29/08, John G. Rose mailto:johnr...@polyplexic.com johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: What does consciousness have to do with the rest of your argument? Multi-agent systems should need individual consciousness to achieve advanced levels of collective intelligence. So if you are programming a multi-agent system, potentially a compressor, having consciousness in the agents could have an intelligence amplifying effect instead of having non-conscious agents. Or some sort of primitive consciousness component since higher level consciousness has not really been programmed yet. Agree? No. What do you mean by consciousness? Some people use consciousness and intelligence interchangeably. If that is the case, then you are just using a circular argument. If not, then what is the difference? -- Matt Mahoney, mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com matmaho...@yahoo.com _ agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com _ agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
--- On Sun, 12/28/08, Philip Hunt cabala...@googlemail.com wrote: Please remember that I am not proposing compression as a solution to the AGI problem. I am proposing it as a measure of progress in an important component (prediction). Then why not cut out the middleman and measure prediction directly? Because a compressor proves the correctness of the measurement software at no additional cost in either space or time complexity or software complexity. The hard part of compression is modeling. Arithmetic coding is essentially a solved problem. A decompressor uses exactly the same model as a compressor. In high end compressors like PAQ, the arithmetic coder takes up about 1% of the software, 1% of the CPU time, and less than 1% of memory. In speech recognition research it is common to use word perplexity as a measure of the quality of a language model. Experimentally, it correlates well with word error rate. Perplexity is defined as 2^H where H is the average number of bits needed to encode a word. Unfortunately this is sometimes done in nonstandard ways, such as with restricted vocabularies and different methods of handling words outside the vocabulary, parsing, stemming, capitalization, punctuation, spacing, and numbers. Without accounting for this additional data, it makes published results difficult to compare. Compression removes the possibility of such ambiguities. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Philip Hunt cabala...@googlemail.com wrote: Incidently, reading Matt's posts got me interested in writing a compression program using Markov-chain prediction. The prediction bit was a piece of piss to write; the compression code is proving considerably more difficult. Well, there is plenty of open source software. http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/ If you want to write your own model and just need a simple arithmetic coder, you probably want fpaq0. Most of the other programs on this page use the same coder or some minor variation of it. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] --- On Sun, 12/28/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: So maybe for improved genetic algorithms used for obtaining max compression there needs to be a consciousness component in the agents? Just an idea I think there is potential for distributed consciousness inside of command line compressors :) No, consciousness (as the term is commonly used) is the large set of properties of human mental processes that distinguish life from death, such as ability to think, learn, experience, make decisions, take actions, communicate, etc. It is only relevant as an independent concept to agents that have a concept of death and the goal of avoiding it. The only goal of a compressor is to predict the next input symbol. Well that's a question. Does death somehow enhance a lifeforms' collective intelligence? Agents competing over finite resources.. I'm wondering if there were multi-agent evolutionary genetics going on would there be a finite resource of which there would be a relation to the collective goal of predicting the next symbol. Agent knowledge is not only passed on in their genes, it is also passed around to other agents Does agent death hinder advances in intelligence or enhance it? And then would the intelligence collected thus be applicable to the goal. And if so, consciousness may be valuable. John --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Well that's a question. Does death somehow enhance a lifeforms' collective intelligence? Yes, by weeding out the weak and stupid. Agents competing over finite resources.. I'm wondering if there were multi-agent evolutionary genetics going on would there be a finite resource of which there would be a relation to the collective goal of predicting the next symbol. No, prediction is a secondary goal. The primary goal is to have a lot of descendants. Agent knowledge is not only passed on in their genes, it is also passed around to other agents Does agent death hinder advances in intelligence or enhance it? And then would the intelligence collected thus be applicable to the goal. And if so, consciousness may be valuable. What does consciousness have to do with the rest of your argument? -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] --- On Mon, 12/29/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Agent knowledge is not only passed on in their genes, it is also passed around to other agents Does agent death hinder advances in intelligence or enhance it? And then would the intelligence collected thus be applicable to the goal. And if so, consciousness may be valuable. What does consciousness have to do with the rest of your argument? Multi-agent systems should need individual consciousness to achieve advanced levels of collective intelligence. So if you are programming a multi-agent system, potentially a compressor, having consciousness in the agents could have an intelligence amplifying effect instead of having non-conscious agents. Or some sort of primitive consciousness component since higher level consciousness has not really been programmed yet. Agree? John --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: What does consciousness have to do with the rest of your argument? Multi-agent systems should need individual consciousness to achieve advanced levels of collective intelligence. So if you are programming a multi-agent system, potentially a compressor, having consciousness in the agents could have an intelligence amplifying effect instead of having non-conscious agents. Or some sort of primitive consciousness component since higher level consciousness has not really been programmed yet. Agree? No. What do you mean by consciousness? Some people use consciousness and intelligence interchangeably. If that is the case, then you are just using a circular argument. If not, then what is the difference? -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
Consciousness of X is: the idea or feeling that X is correlated with Consciousness of X ;-) ben g On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Mon, 12/29/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: What does consciousness have to do with the rest of your argument? Multi-agent systems should need individual consciousness to achieve advanced levels of collective intelligence. So if you are programming a multi-agent system, potentially a compressor, having consciousness in the agents could have an intelligence amplifying effect instead of having non-conscious agents. Or some sort of primitive consciousness component since higher level consciousness has not really been programmed yet. Agree? No. What do you mean by consciousness? Some people use consciousness and intelligence interchangeably. If that is the case, then you are just using a circular argument. If not, then what is the difference? -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
2008/12/29 Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com: --- On Mon, 12/29/08, Philip Hunt cabala...@googlemail.com wrote: Incidently, reading Matt's posts got me interested in writing a compression program using Markov-chain prediction. The prediction bit was a piece of piss to write; the compression code is proving considerably more difficult. Well, there is plenty of open source software. http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/ If you want to write your own model and just need a simple arithmetic coder, you probably want fpaq0. Most of the other programs on this page use the same coder or some minor variation of it. I've just had a look at it, thanks. Am I right in understanding that the coder from fpaq0 could be used with any other predictor? -- Philip Hunt, cabala...@googlemail.com Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Philip Hunt cabala...@googlemail.com wrote: Am I right in understanding that the coder from fpaq0 could be used with any other predictor? Yes. It has a simple interface. You have a class called Predictor which is your bit sequence predictor. It has 2 member functions that you have to write. p() should return your estimated probability that the next bit will be a 1, as a 12 bit number (0 to 4095). update(y) then tells you what that bit actually was, a 0 or 1. The encoder will alternately call these 2 functions for each bit of the sequence. The predictor doesn't know whether it is compressing or decompressing because it sees exactly the same sequence either way. So the easy part is done :) -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] --- On Sat, 12/27/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Well I think consciousness must be some sort of out of band intelligence that bolsters an entity in terms of survival. Intelligence probably stratifies or optimizes in zonal regions of similar environmental complexity, consciousness being one or an overriding out-of-band one... No, consciousness only seems mysterious because human brains are programmed that way. For example, I should logically be able to convince you that pain is just a signal that reduces the probability of you repeating whatever actions immediately preceded it. I can't do that because emotionally you are convinced that pain is real. Emotions can't be learned the way logical facts can, so emotions always win. If you could accept the logical consequences of your brain being just a computer, then you would not pass on your DNA. That's why you can't. BTW the best I can do is believe both that consciousness exists and consciousness does not exist. I realize these positions are inconsistent, and I leave it at that. Consciousness must be a component of intelligence. For example - to pass on DNA for humans, they need to be conscious, or have been up to this point. Humans only live approx. 80 years. Intelligence is really a multi-agent thing, IOW our individual intelligence has come about through the genetic algorithm of humanity, we are really a distributed intelligence and theoretically AGI will be born out of that. So maybe for improved genetic algorithms used for obtaining max compression there needs to be a consciousness component in the agents? Just an idea I think there is potential for distributed consciousness inside of command line compressors :) John --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
--- On Sun, 12/28/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: So maybe for improved genetic algorithms used for obtaining max compression there needs to be a consciousness component in the agents? Just an idea I think there is potential for distributed consciousness inside of command line compressors :) No, consciousness (as the term is commonly used) is the large set of properties of human mental processes that distinguish life from death, such as ability to think, learn, experience, make decisions, take actions, communicate, etc. It is only relevant as an independent concept to agents that have a concept of death and the goal of avoiding it. The only goal of a compressor is to predict the next input symbol. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
2008/12/27 Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com: --- On Fri, 12/26/08, Philip Hunt cabala...@googlemail.com wrote: Humans are very good at predicting sequences of symbols, e.g. the next word in a text stream. Why not have that as your problem domain, instead of text compression? That's the same thing, isn't it? Yes and no. What i mean is they may be the same in principle, but I don't think they are in practice. I'll illustrate this by way of an analogy. The Turing Test is considered by many to be a reasonable definition of intelligence. And I'd agree with them -- if a computer can fool sophisticated alert people into thinking it's a human, it's probably at least as clever as a human. Now consider the Loebner Prize. IMO this is a waste of time in terms of advancement of AI because we're not anyway near advanced enough to build a machine that can think as well as a human. So programs that are good at the Loebner prize as so not because they have good AI architectures, but because threy employ clever tricks to fool people. But that's all there is -- clever tricks with no real substance. Consider compression programs. I have several on my computer: zip, compress, bzip2, gzip, etc. These are all quite good at compression (they all seem to work well on Python source code, for example), but there is not real intelligence or understanding behind them -- they are clever tricks with no substance (where by substance I mean intelligence). Now, consider if I build a program that can predict how some sequences will continue. For example, given ABACADAEA it'll predict the next letter is F, or given: 1 2 4 8 16 32 it'll predict the next number is 64. (Whether the program works on bits, bytes, or longer chunks is a detail, though it might be an important detail.) Even though the program is good at certain types of sequences, it doesn't do compression. For it to do so, I'd have to give it some notation to build a compressed file and then uncompress it again. This is a lot of tedious detail work and doesn't add to it's intelligence. IMO it would just get in the way. -- Philip Hunt, cabala...@googlemail.com Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
2008/12/28 Philip Hunt cabala...@googlemail.com: Now, consider if I build a program that can predict how some sequences will continue. For example, given ABACADAEA it'll predict the next letter is F, or given: 1 2 4 8 16 32 it'll predict the next number is 64. (Whether the program works on bits, bytes, or longer chunks is a detail, though it might be an important detail.) Even though the program is good at certain types of sequences, it doesn't do compression. For it to do so, I'd have to give it some notation to build a compressed file and then uncompress it again. This is a lot of tedious detail work and doesn't add to it's intelligence. IMO it would just get in the way. Furthermore, I don't see that a sequence-predictor should necessarily attempt to guess the next in the sequence by attempting to generate thre shortest possible Turing machine capable of producing the sequence (certainly humans don't work that way). If sequence-predictor uses this method and is good at predictinbg sequences, good; but if it uses anotherm ethod and is good at predicting sequences, it's just as good. What matters is a program's performance, not how it does it. -- Philip Hunt, cabala...@googlemail.com Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
2008/12/29 Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com: Please remember that I am not proposing compression as a solution to the AGI problem. I am proposing it as a measure of progress in an important component (prediction). Then why not cut out the middleman and measure prediction directly? I.e. put the prediction program in a test harness, feed it chunks one at a time, ask it what the next value in the sequence will be, tell it what the actual answer was, etc. The program's score is then simply the number it got right divided by the number of predictions it had to make. Turning a prediction program into a compression program requires superfluous extra work: you have to invent an efficient file format to hold compressed data, and you have to write a decompression program as well as a compressor. Furthermore there are bound to be programs that're good at compression but not good at prediction. Whereas all programs that're good at prediction are guaranteed to be good at prediction. -- Philip Hunt, cabala...@googlemail.com Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
2008/12/29 Philip Hunt cabala...@googlemail.com: 2008/12/29 Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com: Please remember that I am not proposing compression as a solution to the AGI problem. I am proposing it as a measure of progress in an important component (prediction). [...] Turning a prediction program into a compression program requires superfluous extra work: you have to invent an efficient file format to hold compressed data, and you have to write a decompression program as well as a compressor. Incidently, reading Matt's posts got me interested in writing a compression program using Markov-chain prediction. The prediction bit was a piece of piss to write; the compression code is proving considerably more difficult. -- Philip Hunt, cabala...@googlemail.com Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
--- On Sat, 12/27/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: How does consciousness fit into your compression intelligence modeling? It doesn't. Why is consciousness important? I was just prodding you on this. Many people on this list talk about the requirements of consciousness for AGI and I was imagining some sort of consciousness in one of your command line compressors :) I've yet to grasp the relationship between intelligence and consciousness though lately I think consciousness may be more of an evolutionary social thing. Home grown digital intelligence, since it is a loner, may not require much consciousness IMO.. What we commonly call consciousness is a large collection of features that distinguish living human brains from dead human brains: ability to think, communicate, perceive, make decisions, learn, move, talk, see, etc. We only attach significance to it because we evolved, like all animals, to fear a large set of things that can kill us. Max compression implies hacks, kludges and a large decompressor. As I discovered with the large text benchmark. Yep and the behavior of the metrics near max theoretical compression is erratic I think? It shouldn't be. There is a well defined (but possibly not computable) limit for each of the well defined universal Turing machines that the benchmark accepts (x86, C, C++, etc). I was hoping to discover an elegant theory for AI. It didn't quite work that way. It seems to be a kind of genetic algorithm: make random changes to the code and keep the ones that improve compression. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] --- On Sat, 12/27/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: How does consciousness fit into your compression intelligence modeling? It doesn't. Why is consciousness important? I was just prodding you on this. Many people on this list talk about the requirements of consciousness for AGI and I was imagining some sort of consciousness in one of your command line compressors :) I've yet to grasp the relationship between intelligence and consciousness though lately I think consciousness may be more of an evolutionary social thing. Home grown digital intelligence, since it is a loner, may not require much consciousness IMO.. What we commonly call consciousness is a large collection of features that distinguish living human brains from dead human brains: ability to think, communicate, perceive, make decisions, learn, move, talk, see, etc. We only attach significance to it because we evolved, like all animals, to fear a large set of things that can kill us. Well I think consciousness must be some sort of out of band intelligence that bolsters an entity in terms of survival. Intelligence probably stratifies or optimizes in zonal regions of similar environmental complexity, consciousness being one or an overriding out-of-band one... I was hoping to discover an elegant theory for AI. It didn't quite work that way. It seems to be a kind of genetic algorithm: make random changes to the code and keep the ones that improve compression. Is this true for most data? For example would PI digit compression attempts result in genetic emergences the same as say compressing environmental noise? I'm just speculating that genetically originated data would require compression avenues of similar algorithmic complexity descriptors, for example PI digit data does not originate genetically so compression attempts would not show genetic emergences as chained as say environmental noise basically I'm asking if you can tell the difference from data that has a genetic origination ingredient verses all non-genetic... John --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Real-world vs. universal prior (was Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark)
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: I wrote down my thoughts on this in a little more detail here (with some pastings from these emails plus some new info): http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.com/2008/12/subtle-structure-of-physical-world.html I really liked this essay. I'm curious about the clarity of terms 'real world' and 'physical world' in some places. It seems that, to make its point, the essay requires 'real world' and 'physical world' mean only 'practical' or 'familiar physical reality', depending on context. Whereas, if 'real world' is reserved for a very broad definition of realities including physical realities (including classical, quantum mechanical and relativistic time and distance scales), peculiar human cultural realities, and other definable realities, it will be easier in follow-up essays to discuss AGI systems that can natively think simultaneously about any multitude of interrelated realities (a trick that humans are really bad at). I hope this makes sense... -dave --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Real-world vs. universal prior (was Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark)
David, Good point... I'll revise the essay to account for it... The truth is, we just don't know -- but in taking the virtual world approach to AGI, we're very much **hoping** that a subset of human everyday physical reality is good enough. .. ben On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 6:46 AM, David Hart dh...@cogical.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: I wrote down my thoughts on this in a little more detail here (with some pastings from these emails plus some new info): http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.com/2008/12/subtle-structure-of-physical-world.html I really liked this essay. I'm curious about the clarity of terms 'real world' and 'physical world' in some places. It seems that, to make its point, the essay requires 'real world' and 'physical world' mean only 'practical' or 'familiar physical reality', depending on context. Whereas, if 'real world' is reserved for a very broad definition of realities including physical realities (including classical, quantum mechanical and relativistic time and distance scales), peculiar human cultural realities, and other definable realities, it will be easier in follow-up essays to discuss AGI systems that can natively think simultaneously about any multitude of interrelated realities (a trick that humans are really bad at). I hope this makes sense... -dave -- *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Real-world vs. universal prior (was Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark)
Dave -- See mildly revised version, where I replaced real world with everyday world (and defined the latter term explicitly), and added a final section relevant to the distinctions between the everyday world, simulated everyday worlds, and other portions of the physical world. http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.com/2008/12/subtle-structure-of-physical-world.html -- Ben On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: David, Good point... I'll revise the essay to account for it... The truth is, we just don't know -- but in taking the virtual world approach to AGI, we're very much **hoping** that a subset of human everyday physical reality is good enough. .. ben On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 6:46 AM, David Hart dh...@cogical.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: I wrote down my thoughts on this in a little more detail here (with some pastings from these emails plus some new info): http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.com/2008/12/subtle-structure-of-physical-world.html I really liked this essay. I'm curious about the clarity of terms 'real world' and 'physical world' in some places. It seems that, to make its point, the essay requires 'real world' and 'physical world' mean only 'practical' or 'familiar physical reality', depending on context. Whereas, if 'real world' is reserved for a very broad definition of realities including physical realities (including classical, quantum mechanical and relativistic time and distance scales), peculiar human cultural realities, and other definable realities, it will be easier in follow-up essays to discuss AGI systems that can natively think simultaneously about any multitude of interrelated realities (a trick that humans are really bad at). I hope this makes sense... -dave -- *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Real-world vs. universal prior (was Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark)
Ben: in taking the virtual world approach to AGI, we're very much **hoping** that a subset of human everyday physical reality is good enough. .. Ben, Which subset(s)? The idea that you can virtually recreate any part or processes of reality seems horribly flawed - and unexamined. Take the development of intelligence. You seem (from recent exchanges) to accept that there is very roughly some natural order to the development of intelligence. So for example, you can't learn about planets universes, if you haven't first learned about simple objects like stones and balls - nor about politics, governments and international relations if you haven't first learned about language, speech/conversation, emotions, other minds much more. Now we - science - have some ideas about this natural order - about how we have to develop from understanding simple to complex things. But overall our picture is pathetic and hugely gapped. For science to produce an extensive picture of development here would - at a guess - take at least hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientists, and many thousands (or millions) of discoveries, and many changes of competing paradigms. What are the chances then of an individual like you, or team of individuals, being able to design a coherent, practical order of intellectual development for an artificial, virtual agent straight off in a few years ? The same applies to any part of reality. We - science - may have a detailed picture of how some pieces of objects, like stones and water, work. But again our overall ability to model how all those particles, atoms and molecules interrelate in any given object, and how the object as a whole behaves, is still very limited. We still have all kinds of gaps in our picture of water. Scientific models are always far from the real thing. Again, to come anywhere near completing those models will take new armies of scientists. What are the chances then of a few individuals being able to correctly model the behaviour of any objects in the real world on a flat screen? IOW the short cut you hope for is probably the longest way round you could possibly choose. Robotics - forgetting altogether about formally modelling the world - and just interacting with it directly, is actually shorter by far. So I doubt whether you have ever seriously examined how you would recreate a *particular* subset of reality.in any detail - as simple even, say, as a ball - as opposed to the general idea. Have you? [Nb We're talking here about composite models of objects - so it's easy enough to create a reasonable picture of a ball bouncing on a hard surface, but what happens when your agent sits on it, or rubs it on his shirt, or bounces it on water, or sand, or throws it at another ball in mid-air, or (as we've partly discussed) plays with it like an infant ?] --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Real-world vs. universal prior (was Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark)
The question is how much detail about the world needs to be captured in a simulation in order to support humanlike cognitive development. As a single example, Piagetan conservation of volume experiments are often done with water, which would suggest you need to have fluid dynamics in your simulation to support that kind of experiment. But you don't necessarily, because you can do those same experiments with fairly large beads, via using Newtonian mechanics to simulate the rolling-around of the beads. So it's not clear whether fluidics is needed in the sim world to enable humanlike cognitive development, versus whether beads rolling around is good enough (at the moment I suspect the latter) As I'm planning to write a paper on this stuff, I don't want to diver time to writing a long email about it. As for which subset of a physical reality: my specific idea is to simulate a real-world preschool, with enough fidelity that AIs can carry out the same learning tasks that human kids carry out in a real preschool. On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Ben: in taking the virtual world approach to AGI, we're very much **hoping** that a subset of human everyday physical reality is good enough. .. Ben, Which subset(s)? The idea that you can virtually recreate any part or processes of reality seems horribly flawed - and unexamined. Take the development of intelligence. You seem (from recent exchanges) to accept that there is very roughly some natural order to the development of intelligence. So for example, you can't learn about planets universes, if you haven't first learned about simple objects like stones and balls - nor about politics, governments and international relations if you haven't first learned about language, speech/conversation, emotions, other minds much more. Now we - science - have some ideas about this natural order - about how we have to develop from understanding simple to complex things. But overall our picture is pathetic and hugely gapped. For science to produce an extensive picture of development here would - at a guess - take at least hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientists, and many thousands (or millions) of discoveries, and many changes of competing paradigms. What are the chances then of an individual like you, or team of individuals, being able to design a coherent, practical order of intellectual development for an artificial, virtual agent straight off in a few years ? The same applies to any part of reality. We - science - may have a detailed picture of how some pieces of objects, like stones and water, work. But again our overall ability to model how all those particles, atoms and molecules interrelate in any given object, and how the object as a whole behaves, is still very limited. We still have all kinds of gaps in our picture of water. Scientific models are always far from the real thing. Again, to come anywhere near completing those models will take new armies of scientists. What are the chances then of a few individuals being able to correctly model the behaviour of any objects in the real world on a flat screen? IOW the short cut you hope for is probably the longest way round you could possibly choose. Robotics - forgetting altogether about formally modelling the world - and just interacting with it directly, is actually shorter by far. So I doubt whether you have ever seriously examined how you would recreate a *particular* subset of reality.in any detail - as simple even, say, as a ball - as opposed to the general idea. Have you? [Nb We're talking here about composite models of objects - so it's easy enough to create a reasonable picture of a ball bouncing on a hard surface, but what happens when your agent sits on it, or rubs it on his shirt, or bounces it on water, or sand, or throws it at another ball in mid-air, or (as we've partly discussed) plays with it like an infant ?] -- *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
--- On Sat, 12/27/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Well I think consciousness must be some sort of out of band intelligence that bolsters an entity in terms of survival. Intelligence probably stratifies or optimizes in zonal regions of similar environmental complexity, consciousness being one or an overriding out-of-band one... No, consciousness only seems mysterious because human brains are programmed that way. For example, I should logically be able to convince you that pain is just a signal that reduces the probability of you repeating whatever actions immediately preceded it. I can't do that because emotionally you are convinced that pain is real. Emotions can't be learned the way logical facts can, so emotions always win. If you could accept the logical consequences of your brain being just a computer, then you would not pass on your DNA. That's why you can't. BTW the best I can do is believe both that consciousness exists and consciousness does not exist. I realize these positions are inconsistent, and I leave it at that. I was hoping to discover an elegant theory for AI. It didn't quite work that way. It seems to be a kind of genetic algorithm: make random changes to the code and keep the ones that improve compression. Is this true for most data? For example would PI digit compression attempts result in genetic emergences the same as say compressing environmental noise? I'm just speculating that genetically originated data would require compression avenues of similar algorithmic complexity descriptors, for example PI digit data does not originate genetically so compression attempts would not show genetic emergences as chained as say environmental noise basically I'm asking if you can tell the difference from data that has a genetic origination ingredient verses all non-genetic... No, pi can be compressed to a simple program whose size is dominated by the log of the number of digits you want. For text, I suppose I should be satisfied that a genetic algorithm compresses it, except for the fact that so far the algorithm requires a human in the loop, so it doesn't solve the AI problem. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
On Dec 26, 2008, at 6:18 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote: Most compression tests are like defining intelligence as the ability to catch mice. They measure the ability of compressors to compress specific files. This tends to lead to hacks that are tuned to the benchmarks. For the generic intelligence test, all you know about the source is that it has a Solomonoff distribution (for a particular machine). I don't know how you could make the test any more generic. IMO the test is *too* generic ... I don't think real-world AGI is mainly about being able to recognize totally general patterns in totally general datasets. I suspect that to do that, the best approach is ultimately going to be some AIXItl variant ... meaning it's a problem that's not really solvable using a real-world amount of resources. I suspect that all the AGI system one can really build are SO BAD at this general problem, that it's better to characterize AGI systems An interesting question is which pattern subset if ignored would make the problem tractable. J. Andrew Rogers --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
On Dec 26, 2008, at 7:24 PM, Philip Hunt wrote: 2008/12/27 J. Andrew Rogers and...@ceruleansystems.com: I think many people greatly underestimate how many gaping algorithm holes there are in computer science for even the most important and mundane tasks. The algorithm coverage of computer science is woefully incomplete, Is it? In all my time as a programmer, it's never occurred to me to think I wish there was an algorithm to do X. mybe that's just me. And there are vast numbers of useful algorithms that people use every day. Computers are general, so there always exists an obvious algorithm for doing any particular task. Whether or not that obvious algorithm is efficient is quite another thing, since the real costs of various algorithms are far from equivalent even if their functionality is. The Sieve of Eratosthenes will allow you to factor any integer in theory, but for non-trivial integers you will want to use a number field sieve. The limitations of many types of software are fundamentally based in the complexity class of the of the attributes of the algorithms they use. We frequently improperly conflate theoretically impossible and no tractable algorithm currently exists. I wonder (thinking out loud here) are there any statistics for this? For example if you plot the number of such algorithms that've been found over time, what sort of curve would you get? (Of course, you'd have to define general, elegant algorithm for basic problem, which might be tricky) I am still surprised often enough that it is obvious that there is considerable amounts of innovation still being done. It both amuses and annoys me no end that some common algorithms have design characteristics that reflect long-forgotten assumptions that do not even make sense in the context they are used e.g. compulsive tree balancing behavior of intrinsically unbalanced data structures. In short, we have no idea what important and fundamental algorithms will be discovered from one year to the next that change the boundaries of what is practically possible with computer science. Is this true? It doesn't seem right to me. AIUI the current state of the art in operating systems, compilers, garbage collectors, etc is only slightly more efficient than it was 10 or 20 years ago. (In fact, most practical programs are a good deal less efficient, because faster processors mean they don't have to be). It is easy to forget how many basic algorithms we use ubiquitously are relatively recent. The concurrent B-tree algorithm that is pervasively used in databases, file systems, and just about everything else was published in the 1980s. In fact, most of the algorithms that make up a modern SQL database as we understand them were developed in the 1980s, even though the relational model goes back to the 1960s. I don't think I understand you. To me indexing means what the Google search engine or an SQL database does -- but you're using the word with a different meaning aren't you? I mean it exactly like you understand it. Indexed access methods and representations. Sorry, you've lost me again -- I've never heard of the term hyper-rectangles in relation to relational databases. Most people haven't, because there are no hyper-rectangles in relational database *implementations* seeing as how there are no useful algorithms for representing them. Nonetheless, the underlying model describes operations using hyper-rectangles in high-dimensional spaces. In an ideal relational implementation there are never external indexes, only data organized in its native high-dimensionality logical space, since external indexes are a de-normalization. It is not because it is theoretically impossible, but because it is only possible if someone discovers a general algorithm for indexing hyper-rectangles -- faking it is not distributable. How do we know that there is such an algorithm? We don't unless someone publishes one, but there is a lot of evidence that seems to imply otherwise and which proves that much of the research that has been done was misdirected. Aesthetically, the current algorithms for doing this are nasty ugly hacks, and that lack of elegance is often an indicator that a better way exists. In the specific case of indexing hyper-rectangles, the first basic algorithm was published in 1971 (IIRC), but was supplanted by a completely different family of algorithm in 1981. Virtually all research has been based on derivatives of the 1981 algorithm, since it appeared to have better properties. Unfortunately, we can now prove that this algorithm class can never yield a general solution and that a solution must look like a variant of the original 1971 algorithm family that has been ignored for a quarter century. Interestingly, the proof of this comes by way of the recent explosion in the research on massively concurrent data
Re: Real-world vs. universal prior (was Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark)
'On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: See mildly revised version, where I replaced real world with everyday world (and defined the latter term explicitly), and added a final section relevant to the distinctions between the everyday world, simulated everyday worlds, and other portions of the physical world. I think that's much more clear, and the additions help to frame the meaning of 'everyday world'. Another important open question, that's really a generalization of 'how much detail does the virtual world need to have?', is can we create practical progressions of simulations of the everyday world, such that the first (and more crude) simulations are very useful to early attempts at teaching proto-AGIs, and the development of progressively more sophisticated simulations roughly tracks the development of progress in AGI design and development. I also see the kernel of a formally defined science of discovery of the general properties of everyday intelligence; if presented in ways that cognitive scientists appreciate, it could really catch on! -dave --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
--- On Sat, 12/27/08, J. Andrew Rogers and...@ceruleansystems.com wrote: An interesting question is which pattern subset if ignored would make the problem tractable. We don't want to make the problem tractable. We want to discover new, efficient general purpose learning algorithms. AIXI^tl is intractable, yet we have lots of fast algorithms for important subsets: linear regression, decision trees, neural networks, clustering, SVM, etc. If we took out all the problems we couldn't already solve quickly, then what is the point? Here is some sample output of the generic compression benchmark data. It consists of NUL terminated strings packed 8 bits per byte with the low bits of the last byte padded with zero bits. I sorted the data by decreasing frequency of occurrence in a sample of 1 million strings. The data is binary, but displayed here in hex. The top 20 string are 5 bits or less in length. The most frequent string is all zero bits, which has an algorithmic complexity of about -log2(47161/100) = 4.4 bits in the chosen instruction set. 47161 00 26352 8000 14290 C000 14137 4000 7323 A000 7220 E000 7122 2000 7084 6000 3658 3000 3651 5000 3616 7000 3588 9000 3588 1000 3549 D000 3523 B000 3451 F000 1819 A800 1799 7800 1797 B800 1787 6800 1786 8800 Later we start seeing strings of 1 bits of various length, sometimes with a leading 0 bit, and patterns of alternating 0 and 1 bits (...). The string format constraint does not allow the obvious case of long strings of 0 bits. 393 1200 392 F000 392 AE00 391 B600 390 BE00 388 D600 386 8600 385 5E00 384 BA00 384 4E00 379 7A00 377 FA00 375 F600 374 6A00 373 8A00 373 3A00 371 7600 370 D200 370 9600 369 8E00 368 FFFE00 367 9E00 366 1600 364 7E00 363 9A00 351 FFE000 344 F800 341 F800 325 FFF000 308 C000 289 F000 243 7FE000 242 555400 241 FE00 240 F000 236 FFF800 230 FF8000 230 E500 229 FFC000 224 FF00 224 7800 224 0D00 222 9900 219 5500 218 0500 216 8100 216 7FFFE000 215 0100 213 4700 211 FFFE00 211 4100 210 AD00 209 0300 208 8900 207 1500 Here is a sample from the large set that occur exactly twice, which implies about 19 bits of algorithmic complexity (probability 2/10^6). A typical sequence has a few leading bits that occur once, followed by a repeating bit sequence of length 3-5 or occasionally longer. A hex sequence like 249249249... is actually the bit sequence 001001001001... 2 E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E400 2 E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4C000 2 E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E000 2 E4E4E4E4E400 2 E4DFFE00 2 E4DC00 2 E4DB6DB6DB6DB600 2 E4D400 2 E4D0A000 2 E400 2 E4CC00 2 E400 2 E4CC00 2 E400 2 E4C993264C993264C993264C99326400 2 E4C993264C993264C99300 2 E4C993264C993264C99000 2 E4C993264C993264C98000 2 E4C993264C99324000 2 E4C993264C993000 2 E4C800 2 E4C400 2 E4BC9792F25E4BC97900 2 E4B700 2 E4AE00 2 E48000 2 E4AAA000 2 E4AAA800 2 E4A49249249249249000 2 E4A400 2 E492492492492492492492492492492492492000 2 E4924924924924924924924924924924924900 2 E492492492492492492492492492492400 2 E492492492492492492492492492492000 2 E49249249249249249249249249200 2 E49249249249249249249249248000 2 E48A00 2 E4892248922489224892248800 2 E48800 2 E484422110884422110800 2 E48120481204812000 2 E47FFE00 Among strings that occur once (which is most of the data), we see many strings that follow the same type of patterns, but with more unique leading bits and longer repetition cycles. However you occasionally come across strings that have no obvious pattern. THOSE are the interesting problems. 1 FC514514514000 1 FC51255125512551255100 1 FC5100 1 FC50F143C50F143C50F143C400 1 FC50D50D50D50D50D50D50D500 1 FC50AB8A15714200 1 FC508000 1 FC507941E507941E507941E500 1 FC5028140A05028000 1 FC4FB7776000 1 FC4FDC4FDC4FDC00 1 FC4FB6DB6DB6DB6DB6DB6800 1 FC4F62F727C5EE5F00 1 FC4EC9D93B2764EC9D93B27000 1 FC4E66739CE739CC00 1 FC4DC1B89B83713700 1 FC4DB4924924924800 1 FC4D89B13626C4D89B136000 1 FC4D89B13626C4D800 1 FC4D4C4D4C4D4C4D4C00 1 FC4D1C8000 1 FC4D09A1342684D09A13424000 1 FC4CF8933E24CF8000 1 FC4CC400 1 FC4C7C4C7C4C7C4C7C00 1 FC4C4C4C4C4C4C4C4C4C00 1 FC4C4C4C4C4C4C00 1 FC4C1194A32946528000 1 FC4C00 1 FC4BD24924924924924000 1 FC4B89712E25C4B897128000 1 FC4B575B96AEB72D5D6E4000 1 FC4B48D2348D2348D22000 1 FC4B0800 1 FC4A7E253F129F894FC4A78000
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
2008/12/26 Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com: I have updated my universal intelligence test with benchmarks on about 100 compression programs. Humans aren't particularly good at compressing data. Does this mean humans aren't intelligent, or is it a poor definition of intelligence? Although my goal was to sample a Solomonoff distribution to measure universal intelligence (as defined by Hutter and Legg), If I define intelligence as the ability to catch mice, does that mean my cat is more intelligent than most humans? More to the point, I don't understand the point of defining intelligence this way. Care to enlighten me? -- Philip Hunt, cabala...@googlemail.com Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
Philip Hunt wrote: 2008/12/26 Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com: I have updated my universal intelligence test with benchmarks on about 100 compression programs. Humans aren't particularly good at compressing data. Does this mean humans aren't intelligent, or is it a poor definition of intelligence? Although my goal was to sample a Solomonoff distribution to measure universal intelligence (as defined by Hutter and Legg), If I define intelligence as the ability to catch mice, does that mean my cat is more intelligent than most humans? More to the point, I don't understand the point of defining intelligence this way. Care to enlighten me? This may or may not help, but in the past I have pursued exactly these questions, only to get such confusing, evasive and circular answers, all of which amounted to nothing meaningful, that eventually I (like many others) have just had to give up and not engage any more. So, the real answers to your questions are that no, compression is an extremely poor definition of intelligence; and yes, defining intelligence to be something completely arbitrary (like the ability to catch mice) is what Hutter and Legg's analyses are all about. Searching for previous posts of mine which mention Hutter, Legg or AIXI will probably turn up a number of lengthy discussion in which I took a deal of trouble to debunk this stuff. Feel free, of course, to make your own attempt to extract some sense from it all, and by all means let me know if you eventually come to a different conclusion. Richard Loosemore --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
I'll try to answer this one... 1) In a nutshell, the algorithmic info. definition of intelligence is like this: Intelligence is the ability of a system to achieve a goal that is randomly selected from the space of all computable goals, according to some defined probability distribution on computable-goal space. 2) Of course, if one had a system that was highly intelligent according to the above definition, it would be a great compressor. 3) There are theorems stating that if you have a great compressor, then by wrapping a little code around it, you can get a system that will be highly intelligent according to the algorithmic info. definition. The catch is that this system (as constructed in the theorems) will use insanely, infeasibly much computational resource. What are the weaknesses of the approach: A) The real problem of AI is to make a system that can achieve complex goals using feasibly much computational resource. B) Workable strategies for achieving complex goals using feasibly much computational resource, may be highly dependent on the particular probability distribution over goal space mentioned in 1 above For this reason, I'm not sure the algorithmic info. approach is of much use for building real AGI systems. I note that Shane Legg is now directing his research toward designing practical AGI systems along totally different lines, not directly based any of the alg. info. stuff he worked on in his thesis. However, Marcus Hutter, Juergen Schmidhuber and others are working on methods of scaling down the approaches mentioned in 3 above (AIXItl, the Godel Machine, etc.) to as to yield feasible techniques. So far this has led to some nice machine learning algorithms (e.g. the parameter-free temporal difference reinforcement learning scheme in part of Legg's thesis, and Hutter's new work on Feature Bayesian Networks and so forth), but nothing particularly AGI-ish. But personally I wouldn't be harshly dismissive of this research direction, even though it's not the one I've chosen. -- Ben G On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Richard Loosemore r...@lightlink.comwrote: Philip Hunt wrote: 2008/12/26 Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com: I have updated my universal intelligence test with benchmarks on about 100 compression programs. Humans aren't particularly good at compressing data. Does this mean humans aren't intelligent, or is it a poor definition of intelligence? Although my goal was to sample a Solomonoff distribution to measure universal intelligence (as defined by Hutter and Legg), If I define intelligence as the ability to catch mice, does that mean my cat is more intelligent than most humans? More to the point, I don't understand the point of defining intelligence this way. Care to enlighten me? This may or may not help, but in the past I have pursued exactly these questions, only to get such confusing, evasive and circular answers, all of which amounted to nothing meaningful, that eventually I (like many others) have just had to give up and not engage any more. So, the real answers to your questions are that no, compression is an extremely poor definition of intelligence; and yes, defining intelligence to be something completely arbitrary (like the ability to catch mice) is what Hutter and Legg's analyses are all about. Searching for previous posts of mine which mention Hutter, Legg or AIXI will probably turn up a number of lengthy discussion in which I took a deal of trouble to debunk this stuff. Feel free, of course, to make your own attempt to extract some sense from it all, and by all means let me know if you eventually come to a different conclusion. Richard Loosemore --- 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/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI b...@goertzel.org I intend to live forever, or die trying. -- Groucho Marx --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] --- On Fri, 12/26/08, Philip Hunt cabala...@googlemail.com wrote: Humans aren't particularly good at compressing data. Does this mean humans aren't intelligent, or is it a poor definition of intelligence? Humans are very good at predicting sequences of symbols, e.g. the next word in a text stream. However, humans are not very good at resetting their mental states and deterministically reproducing the exact sequence of learning steps and assignment of probabilities, which is what you need to decompress the data. Fortunately this is not a problem for computers. Human memory storage may be lossy compression and recall may be decompression. Some very rare individuals remember every day of their life in vivid detail, not sure what that means in terms of memory storage. How does consciousness fit into your compression intelligence modeling? The thing about the word compression is that it is bass-ackwards when talking about intelligence. The word describes kind of an external effect, instead of an internal reconfiguration/re-representation. Also there is a difference between a goal of achieving maximum compression verses a goal of achieving a high efficiency data description. Max compression implies hacks, kludges and a large decompressor. Here is a simple example of human memory compression/decompression - When you think of space, air or emptiness like driving across Kansas, looking at the moon, or waiting idly over a period of time, do you store the emptiness and redundantness or does it get compressed out? The trip across Kansas you remember the starting point, rest stops, and the end, not the full duration. It's a natural compression. In fact I'd say this is a partially lossless compression though more lossy... maybe it is incidental but it is still there. John --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
Most compression tests are like defining intelligence as the ability to catch mice. They measure the ability of compressors to compress specific files. This tends to lead to hacks that are tuned to the benchmarks. For the generic intelligence test, all you know about the source is that it has a Solomonoff distribution (for a particular machine). I don't know how you could make the test any more generic. IMO the test is *too* generic ... I don't think real-world AGI is mainly about being able to recognize totally general patterns in totally general datasets. I suspect that to do that, the best approach is ultimately going to be some AIXItl variant ... meaning it's a problem that's not really solvable using a real-world amount of resources. I suspect that all the AGI system one can really build are SO BAD at this general problem, that it's better to characterize AGI systems -- NOT in terms of how well they do at this general problem but rather -- in terms of what classes of datasets/environments they are REALLY GOOD at recognizing patterns in I think the environments existing in the real physical and social world are drawn from a pretty specific probability distribution (compared to say, the universal prior), and that for this reason, looking at problems of compression or pattern recognition across general program spaces without real-world-oriented biases, is not going to lead to real-world AGI. The important parts of AGI design are the ones that (directly or indirectly) reflect the specific distribution of problems that the reeal world presents an AGI system. And this distribution is **really hard** to encapsulate in a text compression database. Because, we don't know what this distribution is. And this is why we should be working on AGI systems that interact with the real physical and social world, or the most accurate simulations of it we can build. -- Ben G --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
2008/12/26 Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com: Humans are very good at predicting sequences of symbols, e.g. the next word in a text stream. Why not have that as your problem domain, instead of text compression? Most compression tests are like defining intelligence as the ability to catch mice. They measure the ability of compressors to compress specific files. This tends to lead to hacks that are tuned to the benchmarks. For the generic intelligence test, all you know about the source is that it has a Solomonoff distribution (for a particular machine). I don't know how you could make the test any more generic. It seems to me that you and Hutter are interested in a problem domain that consists of: 1. generating random turing machines 2. running them to produce output 3. feeding the output as input to another program P, which will then guess future characters based on previous ones 4. having P use these guesses to do compression May I suggest that instead you modify this problem domain by: (a) remove clause 1 -- it's not fundamentally interesting that output comes from a turing machine. Maybe instead make output come from a program (written by humans and interesting to humans) in a normal programming language that people would actually use to write code in (b) remove clause 4 -- compression is a bit of a red herring here, what's important is to predict future output based on past output. IMO if you made these changes, your problem domain would be a more useful one. While you're at it you may want to change the size of the chunks in each item of prediction, from characters to either strings or s-expressions. Though doing so doesn't fundamentally alter the problem. -- Philip Hunt, cabala...@googlemail.com Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
2008/12/27 Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org: And this is why we should be working on AGI systems that interact with the real physical and social world, or the most accurate simulations of it we can build. Or some other domain that may have some practical use, e.g. understanding program source code. -- Philip Hunt, cabala...@googlemail.com Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Real-world vs. universal prior (was Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark)
Suppose I take the universal prior and condition it on some real-world training data. For example, if you're interested in real-world vision, take 1000 frames of real video, and then the proposed probability distribution is the portion of the universal prior that explains the real video. (I can mathematically define this if there is interest, but I'm guessing the other people here can too, so maybe we can skip that. Speak up if I'm being too unclear.) Do you think the result is different in an important way from the real-world probability distribution you're looking for? -- Tim Freeman http://www.fungible.com t...@fungible.com No, I think that in principle that's the right approach ... but that simple, artificial exercises like conditioning data on photos don't come close to capturing the richness of statistical structure in the physical universe ... or in the subsets of the physical universe that humans typically deal with... ben --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
--- On Fri, 12/26/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote: Human memory storage may be lossy compression and recall may be decompression. Some very rare individuals remember every day of their life in vivid detail, not sure what that means in terms of memory storage. Human perception is a form of lossy compression which has nothing to do with the lossless compression that I use to measure prediction accuracy. Many lossless compressors use lossy filters too. A simple example is an order-n context where we discard everything except the last n symbols. How does consciousness fit into your compression intelligence modeling? It doesn't. Why is consciousness important? Max compression implies hacks, kludges and a large decompressor. As I discovered with the large text benchmark. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Spatial indexing (was Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark)
--- On Fri, 12/26/08, J. Andrew Rogers and...@ceruleansystems.com wrote: For example, there is no general indexing algorithm described in computer science. Which was my thesis topic and is the basis of my AGI design. http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi2.html (I wanted to do my dissertation on AI/compression, but funding issues got in the way). Distributed indexing is critical to an AGI design consisting of a huge number of relatively dumb specialists and an infrastructure for getting messages to the right ones. In my thesis, I proposed a vector space model where messages are routed in O(n) time over n nodes. The problem is that the number of connections per node has to be on the order of the number of dimensions in the search space. For text, that is about 10^5. There are many other issues, of course, such as fault tolerance, security and ownership issues. There has to be an economic incentive to contribute knowledge and computing resources, because it is too expensive for anyone to own it. The human genome size has no meaningful relationship to the complexity of coding AGI. Yes it does. It is an upper bound on the complexity of a baby. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
--- On Fri, 12/26/08, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote: IMO the test is *too* generic ... Hopefully this work will lead to general principles of learning and prediction that could be combined with more specific techniques. For example, a common way to compress text is to encode it with one symbol per word and feed the result to a general purpose compressor. Generic compression should improve the back end. My concern is the data is not generic enough. A string has an algorithmic complexity that is independent of language up to a small constant, but in practice that constant (the algorithmic complexity of the compiler) can be much larger than the string. I have not been able to find a good solution to this problem. I realize there are some very simple, Turing-complete systems, such as a 2 state machine with a 3 symbol alphabet, and a 6 state binary machine, as well as various cellular automata (like rule 110). The problem is that programming simple machines often requires long programs to do simple things. For example, it is difficult to find a simple language where the smallest program to output 100 zero bits is shorter than 100 bits. Existing languages and instruction sets tend to be complex and ad-hoc in order to allow programmers to be expressive. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
--- On Fri, 12/26/08, Philip Hunt cabala...@googlemail.com wrote: Humans are very good at predicting sequences of symbols, e.g. the next word in a text stream. Why not have that as your problem domain, instead of text compression? That's the same thing, isn't it? While you're at it you may want to change the size of the chunks in each item of prediction, from characters to either strings or s-expressions. Though doing so doesn't fundamentally alter the problem. In the generic test, the fundamental units are bits. It's not entirely suitable for most existing compressors, which tend to be byte oriented. But they are only byte oriented because a lot of data is structured that way. In general, it doesn't need to be. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: Spatial indexing (was Re: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark)
--- On Sat, 12/27/08, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote: In my thesis, I proposed a vector space model where messages are routed in O(n) time over n nodes. Oops, O(log n). -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com] How does consciousness fit into your compression intelligence modeling? It doesn't. Why is consciousness important? I was just prodding you on this. Many people on this list talk about the requirements of consciousness for AGI and I was imagining some sort of consciousness in one of your command line compressors :) I've yet to grasp the relationship between intelligence and consciousness though lately I think consciousness may be more of an evolutionary social thing. Home grown digital intelligence, since it is a loner, may not require much consciousness IMO.. Max compression implies hacks, kludges and a large decompressor. As I discovered with the large text benchmark. Yep and the behavior of the metrics near max theoretical compression is erratic I think? john --- 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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Universal intelligence test benchmark
I have been developing an experimental test set along the lines of Legg and Hutter's universal intelligence ( http://www.idsia.ch/idsiareport/IDSIA-04-05.pdf ). They define general intelligence as the expected reward of an AIXI agent in a Solomonoff distribution of environments (simulated by random Turing machines). AIXI is essentially a compression problem (find the shortest program consistent with the interaction so far). Thus, my benchmark is a large number (10^6) of small strings (1-32 bytes) generated by random Turing machines. The benchmark is here: http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/uiq/ I believe I have solved the technical issues related to experimental uncertainty and ensuring the source is cryptographically random. My goal was to make it an open benchmark with verifiable results while making it impossible to hard-code any knowledge of the test data into the agent. Other benchmarks solve this problem by including the decompressor size in the measurement, but my approach makes this unnecessary. However, I would appreciate any comments. A couple of issues arose in designing the benchmark. One is that compression results are highly dependent on the choice of universal Turing machine, even though all machines are theoretically equivalent. The problem is that even though any machine can simulate any other by appending a compiler or interpreter, this small constant is significant in practice where the complexity of the programs is already small. I tried to create a simple but expressive language based on a 2 tape machine (working plus output, both one sided and binary) and an instruction set that outputs a bit with each instruction. There are, of course, many options. I suppose I could use an experimental approach of finding languages that rank compressors in the same order as other benchmarks. But there doesn't seem to be a guiding principle. Also, it does not seem even possible to sample a Solomonoff distribution. Legg proved in http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.AI/0606070 that there are strings that are hard to learn, but that the time to create them grows as fast as the busy beaver problem. Of course I can't create such strings in my benchmark. I can create algorithmically complex sources, but they are necessarily easy to learn (for example, 100 random bits followed by all zero bits). Is it possible to test the intelligence of an agent without having at least as much computing power? Legg's paper seems to say no. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.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=8660244id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
