Matt,
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Matt Mahoney via AGI
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Steve Richfield
> wrote:
> > The objective of the competition is to uncover presently hidden
> challenges that lie ahead, e.g. is it even possible to explain to people
> that sometimes it is what
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Steve Richfield
wrote:
> The objective of the competition is to uncover presently hidden challenges
> that lie ahead, e.g. is it even possible to explain to people that sometimes
> it is what they value the most that is the very PROBLEM they wish to
> overcome. I
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Jim Bromer via AGI wrote:
> Let me restate that question.
> Are there any other compression methods that have an average
> logarithmic compression ratio, which can take an exponential time to
> decompress using a general set of algorithms, that do not rely on any
>
Matt,
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Matt Mahoney via AGI
wrote:
> What I'm asking is the objective of the test. Is it to convince the judge
> that you are a computer?
>
No, that would be very easy, be very easy, be very easy, be very easy,
STACK OVERFLOW.
Presuming that you are SOMETHING tha
On 3/6/15, Steve Richfield via AGI wrote:
> It seems obvious (to) me that any envisioned super duper AGI of the future
> would be easily able to win a reverse Turing competition - demonstrating
> with advanced logical solutions to difficult problems that it is a machine
> and NOT merely human.
>
What I'm asking is the objective of the test. Is it to convince the judge
that you are a computer?
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Steve Richfield
wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Just because there are no (known) non-biological AGIs doesn't mean that we
> can't run a competition for the biological variety.
Matt,
Just because there are no (known) non-biological AGIs doesn't mean that we
can't run a competition for the biological variety. Just set it up so that
all participants are welcomed, regardless of their technology.
Continuing...
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Matt Mahoney via AGI
wrote:
>
Let me restate that question.
Are there any other compression methods that have an average
logarithmic compression ratio, which can take an exponential time to
decompress using a general set of algorithms, that do not rely on any
non-general special substitutions, which are not reducible to Boolean
One other thing Matt. We have talked about this before. Your interest
in compression should tell you intuitively that the P<>NP theory is
unlikely. Are there any other compression schemes - that use systems
of algorithms but don't use special non-general individual
substitutions - that are exponent
I think you are just stringing words together. If I'm mistaken perhaps you
can express yourself without using obscure terminology from various domains
and metaphorically at that. Why not just say what you mean. The objective
of AGI is hard enough as it is. We don't need to make it harder by tal
Matt
I appreciate the conversations we have had about the N=?NP question.
My interest in the subject concerns the question of how significant
improvements in SAT solutions could affect development of AGI
programs. The reason I have not been interested in joining discussion
groups of N=?NP is just b
In my view
But the Turing Test already has such a test inherent in it, as antithesis. That
is the point. Logically, if a human proves that it is a machine, then one
proves one's own humanity. If one proves that it isn't, then one proves the
same thing. The test always returns a value of 1.
Could you explain the rules?
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Steve Richfield via AGI
wrote:
> It seems obvious (to) me that any envisioned super duper AGI of the future
> would be easily able to win a reverse Turing competition - demonstrating
> with advanced logical solutions to difficult pro
It seems obvious (to) me that any envisioned super duper AGI of the future
would be easily able to win a reverse Turing competition - demonstrating
with advanced logical solutions to difficult problems that it is a machine
and NOT merely human.
To see how such an AGI might function, and how its re
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:59 AM, John Rose via AGI wrote:
> No, there are others that believe P=NP besides Jim I'm sure some of you have
> been following Bolotin's argument from last year:
>
> https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-astounding-link-between-the-p-np-problem-and-the-quantum-n
Just a thought.
John, this has been my contention all along. It exists, but it also does not
exist, and everything in between and nothing. It exists in both "known states"
of a singular quantum universe, yet is not manifested by either or combination
of both alone. Something is possibly mi
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Mahoney via AGI [mailto:a...@listbox.com]
>
> NP-hard means NP-complete or harder. NP-complete means that a solution
> would solve any problem in NP. NP is the class of problems whose answers
> can be verified in time that is a polynomial function of the i
Jim, can you describe an algorithm where P = NP would exponentially
speed up visual processing? My understanding is that the most advanced
vision algorithms use deep neural networks with a structure similar to
the visual cortex. In general, neural network size (in synapses)
should be proportional t
18 matches
Mail list logo
