On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:59 PM Jim Bromer via AGI
wrote:
> Each game could be reduced to a conveniently
> finite number of reactions and principles. So if someone wanted to
waste his time he could create a simple physics-like modelling program
> that could learn to play the games. The
not so?
>>
>>
>> ____
>> From: Robert Levy via AGI
>> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2018 10:08 PM
>> To: AGI
>> Subject: [agi] Judea Pearl on AGI
>>
>> I don't think I've seen a discussion on this mailing list y
@agi.topicbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Judea Pearl on AGI
If Demis Hassabis, the current leader of Google's DeepMind AI subsidiary, was
able several years ago to create an artificially intelligent program that could
learn to play each of many different video games much better than human
players -- just from
-
> *From:* Robert Levy via AGI
> *Sent:* Thursday, 13 September 2018 10:08 PM
> *To:* AGI
> *Subject:* [agi] Judea Pearl on AGI
>
> I don't think I've seen a discussion on this mailing list yet about
> Pearl's hypothesis that causal inference is the key to AGI. His
> breakt
rectly causing C, but it was
already inferred that A directly caused C. Did it, or didn't it?
This would present as a self-made paradox, not so?
From: Robert Levy via AGI
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2018 10:08 PM
To: AGI
Subject: [agi] Judea Pearl on AGI
I don't
I don't think I've seen a discussion on this mailing list yet about Pearl's
hypothesis that causal inference is the key to AGI. His breakthroughs on
causation have been in use for almost 2 decades. The new Book of Why,
other than being the most accessible presentation of these ideas to a
broader
