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: Human-centric AGI approach-paper (was Re: Indexing and Re: [agi] AGI Preschool: sketch of an evaluation framework for early stage AGI systems aimed at human-level, roughly humanlike AGI
Mike, Six 2003 Seven 1996 Eight 2001 Eight and a half Good point with the movies, only a hardcore movie fan would make that association early in his trials to figure out the pattern as movie dates. In this case you gave a hint, such a hint would tell the system to widen its attention spotlight to inlude movies, so entertainment, events, celebration, etc would come under attention based on what structure the movie concept's parent has in its domain content. Thinking imaginatively to find hard solutions as you say, is possible with this system, by telling it to think outside the box to other domains and it can learn this pattern of domain- hopping based on the reward of a success or being authorized to value cross-domain attention search. Thinking for the system is: shifting its attention to different regions (with the 4 domains), sizing and orienting the attention scale, and setting the focus depth (of details); it can then read the contents of what comes up from that region and Compare, Contrast, Combine it to anyalyze or synthesize it. Thinking bigger or narrower is almost literal. Like humans, this system stops a behavior (e.g, stops searching) because it runs out of motivation value, not ideas to search. Many systems known or described can lend themself to brute force thinking unsure of a solution, this structure allows it to do it elegantly using human-centric concept domains first (easier for us to communicate to it this way by saying build a damn good engine as human do vs 0010101101 or any other non-human language). It can and does re-write the concepts and content in its domain as it learns, but it started with the domains humans give it, e.g., I knew what movies were by having live in a number of situations where this concept was built up, so that later, I can learn about independent films and live performances or new types of entertainment thta gives similar or unfamiliar emotions. Further rational 1) What humans do: have a biased (value system) that makes sense relative to our biological architecture; Generate all human knowledge in this representation structure (natural language, ambiguous, low logic language). 2) What an early AGI can do: learn the human-bias by having a similar architecture which includes the value bias for pattern humans seek. Obtain as much of the recorded knowledge in the world from humans. Generate more, faster, new and better knowlege. Better is because it knows our value system and as well knows humans enough to convince them in a diccussion unlike most of us, that better is what it wants us to do(very bad!). For natural language processing, humans readily communicate in song and poems, and understand them. Many songs and poems do not make any logical sense, and few songs have wording order and story elements that are reasonable. The model makes sense by looking for patterns where humans do, in the beats (situational border that structure all input) and the value (emotional meaning) of the song/poems content. Hope some of this helps Robert --- On Sun, 12/28/08, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: From: Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk Subject: Re: Human-centric AGI approach-paper (was Re: Indexing and Re: [agi] AGI Preschool: sketch of an evaluation framework for early stage AGI systems aimed at human-level, roughly humanlike AGI To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Sunday, December 28, 2008, 11:38 PM Robert, Thanks for your detailed, helpful replies. I like your approach of operating in multiple domains for problemsolving. But if the domains are known beforehand, then it's not truly creative problemsolving - where you do have to be prepared to go in search of the appropriate domains - and thus truly cross domains rather than simply combining preselected ones. I gave you a perhaps exaggerated example just to make the point. You had to realise that the correct domain to solve my problem was that of movies - the numbers were the titles of movies and the dates they came out. If you're dealing with real world rather than just artificial creative problems like our two, you may definitely have to make that kind of domain switch - solving any scientific detective problem, say, like that of binding in the brain, may require you to think in a surprising, new domain, for which you will have to search long and hard (and possibly without end). Mike, Very good choice. But the system always *knows* these domains beforehand - and that it must consider them in any problem? YES the domains content structure is what you mean, are the human-centric ones provided by living a childs life loading the value system with biases such as humans are warm and candy is really sweet. By further being pushed thru western culture grade level curriculum we value the visual features symbols 2003 and 1996 as numbers, then as dates. The content models (concept patterns) are build up from
Re: Human-centric AGI approach-paper (was Re: Indexing and Re: [agi] AGI Preschool: sketch of an evaluation framework for early stage AGI systems aimed at human-level, roughly humanlike AGI
The paper as a link instead of attachment: http://mindsoftbioware.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Swaine_R_Story_Understander_Model.36375123.pdf The paper gives a quick view of the Human-centric representation and behavioral systems approach for problem-solving, reasoning as giving meaning (human values) to stories and games...Indexing relations via spatially related registers is it's simulated substrate. cheers, Robert --- 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
[agi] Hypercomputation and AGI
Hi, I expanded a previous blog entry of mine on hypercomputation and AGI into a conference paper on the topic ... here is a rough draft, on which I'd appreciate commentary from anyone who's knowledgeable on the subject: http://goertzel.org/papers/CognitiveInformaticsHypercomputationPaper.pdf This is a theoretical rather than practical paper, although it does attempt to explore some of the practical implications as well -- e.g., in the hypothesis that intelligence does require hypercomputation, how might one go about creating AGI? I come to a somewhat surprising conclusion, which is that -- even if intelligence fundamentally requires hypercomputation -- it could still be possible to create an AI via making Turing computer programs ... it just wouldn't be possible to do this in a manner guided entirely by science; one would need to use some other sort of guidance too, such as chance, imitation or intuition... -- Ben G -- 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 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
[agi] [Science Daily] Our Unconscious Brain Makes The Best Decisions Possible
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081224215542.htm Nothing surprising ;-) --- 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] [Science Daily] Our Unconscious Brain Makes The Best Decisions Possible
Lukasz Stafiniak wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081224215542.htm Nothing surprising ;-) Nothing surprising?!! 8-) Don't say that too loudly, Yudkowsky might hear you. :-) The article is a bit naughty when it says, of Tversky and Kahnemann, that ...this has become conventional wisdom among cognition researchers. Actually, the original facts were interpreted in a variety of ways, some of which strongly disagreed with T K's original intepretation, just like this one you reference above. The only thing that is conventional wisdom is that the topic exists, and is the subject of dispute. And, as many people know, I made the mistake of challenging Yudkowsky on precisely this subject back in 2006, when he wrote an essay strongly advocating TK's original intepretation. Yudkowsky went completely berserk, accused me of being an idiot, having no brain, not reading any of the literature, never answering questions, and generally being something unspeakably worse than a slime-oozing crank. He literally wrote an essay denouncing me as equivalent to a flat-earth believing crackpot. When I suggested that someone go check some of his ravings with an outside authority, he banned me from his discussion list. Ah, such are the joys of being speaking truth to power(ful idiots). ;-) As far as this research goes, it sits somewhere down at the lower end of the available theories. My friend Mike Oaksford in the UK has written several papers giving a higher level cognitive theory that says that people are, in fact, doing something like bayesian estimation when then make judgments. In fact, people are very good at being bayesians, contra the loud protests of the I Am A Bayesian Rationalist crowd, who think they were the first to do it. 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] Hypercomputation and AGI
On Dec 29, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote: I expanded a previous blog entry of mine on hypercomputation and AGI into a conference paper on the topic ... here is a rough draft, on which I'd appreciate commentary from anyone who's knowledgeable on the subject: http://goertzel.org/papers/CognitiveInformaticsHypercomputationPaper.pdf This is a theoretical rather than practical paper, although it does attempt to explore some of the practical implications as well -- e.g., in the hypothesis that intelligence does require hypercomputation, how might one go about creating AGI? I come to a somewhat surprising conclusion, which is that -- even if intelligence fundamentally requires hypercomputation -- it could still be possible to create an AI via making Turing computer programs ... it just wouldn't be possible to do this in a manner guided entirely by science; one would need to use some other sort of guidance too, such as chance, imitation or intuition... As more of a meta-comment, the whole notion of hypercomputation seems to be muddled, insofar as super-recursive algorithms may be a limited example of it. I was doing a lot of work with inductive Turing machines several years ago, and most of the differences seemed to be definitional e.g. what constitutes an algorithm or answer. For most practical purposes, the price of implementing them in conventional discrete space is the introduction of some (usually acceptable) error. But if they approximate to the point of functional convergence on a normal Turing machine... As best I have been able to tell, and I have not really been paying attention because the arguments seem to mostly be people talking past each other, is that ITMs raise some interesting philosophical questions regarding hypercomputation. We cannot implement a *strict* hypercomputer, but to what extent does it count if we can asymptotically converge on the functional consequences of a hypercomputer using a normal computer? It suspect it will be hard to evict the belief in Penrosian magic from the error bars in any case. Cheers, 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] Hypercomputation and AGI
Well, some of the papers in the references of my paper give formal mathematical definitions of hypercomputation, though my paper is brief and conceptual and not of that nature. So although the generic concept may be muddled, there are certainly some fully precise variants of it. This paper surveys various formally defined varieties of hypercomputing, though I haven't read it closely.. http://www.amirrorclear.net/academic/papers/many-forms.pdf Anyway the argument in my paper is pretty strong and applies to any variant with power beyond that of ordinary Turing machines, it would seem... -- ben g On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:18 PM, J. Andrew Rogers and...@ceruleansystems.com wrote: On Dec 29, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote: I expanded a previous blog entry of mine on hypercomputation and AGI into a conference paper on the topic ... here is a rough draft, on which I'd appreciate commentary from anyone who's knowledgeable on the subject: http://goertzel.org/papers/CognitiveInformaticsHypercomputationPaper.pdf This is a theoretical rather than practical paper, although it does attempt to explore some of the practical implications as well -- e.g., in the hypothesis that intelligence does require hypercomputation, how might one go about creating AGI? I come to a somewhat surprising conclusion, which is that -- even if intelligence fundamentally requires hypercomputation -- it could still be possible to create an AI via making Turing computer programs ... it just wouldn't be possible to do this in a manner guided entirely by science; one would need to use some other sort of guidance too, such as chance, imitation or intuition... As more of a meta-comment, the whole notion of hypercomputation seems to be muddled, insofar as super-recursive algorithms may be a limited example of it. I was doing a lot of work with inductive Turing machines several years ago, and most of the differences seemed to be definitional e.g. what constitutes an algorithm or answer. For most practical purposes, the price of implementing them in conventional discrete space is the introduction of some (usually acceptable) error. But if they approximate to the point of functional convergence on a normal Turing machine... As best I have been able to tell, and I have not really been paying attention because the arguments seem to mostly be people talking past each other, is that ITMs raise some interesting philosophical questions regarding hypercomputation. We cannot implement a *strict* hypercomputer, but to what extent does it count if we can asymptotically converge on the functional consequences of a hypercomputer using a normal computer? It suspect it will be hard to evict the belief in Penrosian magic from the error bars in any case. Cheers, 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/?; 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
--- 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] [Science Daily] Our Unconscious Brain Makes The Best Decisions Possible
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Lukasz Stafiniak lukst...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081224215542.htm Nothing surprising ;-) So they have a result saying that we're good at subconsciously estimating the direction in which dots on a screen are moving in. Apparently this can be safely generalized into Our Unconscious Brain Makes The Best Decisions Possible (implied: always). You're right, nothing surprising. Just the kind of unfounded, simplistic hyperbole I'd expect from your average science reporter. ;-) --- 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] news bit: Evolution of Intelligence More Complex Than Once Thought
Via Slashdot: *According to a new article published in Scientific American, the nature of and evolutionary development of animal intelligence is significantly more complicated than many have assumedhttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=one-world-many-minds. In opposition to the widely held view that intelligence is largely linear in nature, in many cases intelligent traits have developed along independent paths. From the article: 'Over the past 30 years, however, research in comparative neuroanatomy clearly has shown that complex brains — and sophisticated cognition — have evolved from simpler brains multiple times independently in separate lineages ...'* * * --- 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] Hypercomputation and AGI
On Dec 29, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote: Well, some of the papers in the references of my paper give formal mathematical definitions of hypercomputation, though my paper is brief and conceptual and not of that nature. So although the generic concept may be muddled, there are certainly some fully precise variants of it. My comment was not really against the argument you make in the paper, nor do I disagree with your definition of hypercomputation. (BTW, run spellcheck.) I was referring to the somewhat anomalous difficulty of deciding whether or not some computational models truly meet that definition as a practical matter. Anyway the argument in my paper is pretty strong and applies to any variant with power beyond that of ordinary Turing machines, it would seem... No disagreement with that, which is why I called it a meta- comment. :-) Super-recursive algorithms, inductive Turing machines, and related computational models can be made to sit in a somewhat fuzzy place with respect to whether or not they are hypercomputers or normal Turing machines. A Turing machine that asymptotically converges on producing the same result as a hypercomputer is an interesting case insofar as the results they produce may be close enough that you can consider the difference to be below the noise floor, and if they are functionally equivalent using that somewhat unusual definition then you effectively have equivalence to a hypercomputer without the hypercomputer. Not strictly by definition, but within some strictly implied error bound for the purposes of comparing output (which is all we usually care about). The concept of non-isotropic distributions of random numbers has always interested me for much the same reason, since there seems to be a similar concept at work there. Cheers, 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] [Science Daily] Our Unconscious Brain Makes The Best Decisions Possible
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Richard Loosemore r...@lightlink.com wrote: 8-) Don't say that too loudly, Yudkowsky might hear you. :-) ... When I suggested that someone go check some of his ravings with an outside authority, he banned me from his discussion list. Yudkowsky's side of the story might be of interest... http://www.sl4.org/archive/0608/15895.html http://www.sl4.org/archive/0608/15928.html -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Richard Loosemore r...@lightlink.com Subject: Re: [agi] [Science Daily] Our Unconscious Brain Makes The Best Decisions Possible To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 4:02 PM Lukasz Stafiniak wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081224215542.htm Nothing surprising ;-) Nothing surprising?!! 8-) Don't say that too loudly, Yudkowsky might hear you. :-) The article is a bit naughty when it says, of Tversky and Kahnemann, that ...this has become conventional wisdom among cognition researchers. Actually, the original facts were interpreted in a variety of ways, some of which strongly disagreed with T K's original intepretation, just like this one you reference above. The only thing that is conventional wisdom is that the topic exists, and is the subject of dispute. And, as many people know, I made the mistake of challenging Yudkowsky on precisely this subject back in 2006, when he wrote an essay strongly advocating TK's original intepretation. Yudkowsky went completely berserk, accused me of being an idiot, having no brain, not reading any of the literature, never answering questions, and generally being something unspeakably worse than a slime-oozing crank. He literally wrote an essay denouncing me as equivalent to a flat-earth believing crackpot. When I suggested that someone go check some of his ravings with an outside authority, he banned me from his discussion list. Ah, such are the joys of being speaking truth to power(ful idiots). ;-) As far as this research goes, it sits somewhere down at the lower end of the available theories. My friend Mike Oaksford in the UK has written several papers giving a higher level cognitive theory that says that people are, in fact, doing something like bayesian estimation when then make judgments. In fact, people are very good at being bayesians, contra the loud protests of the I Am A Bayesian Rationalist crowd, who think they were the first to do it. 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
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
