Solomonoff Induction is not well-defined because it is either incomputable
and/or absurdly irrelevant. This is where the communication breaks down. I
have no idea why you would make a remark like that. It is interesting that
you are an incremental-progress guy.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:59
I wanted to know if there is any bench mark test that can really convince
majority of today's AGIers that a System is true AGI?
Is there some real prize like the XPrize for AGI or AI in general?
thanks,
Deepak
---
agi
Archives:
2010/7/18 deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com
I wanted to know if there is any bench mark test that can really convince
majority of today's AGIers that a System is true AGI?
Is there some real prize like the XPrize for AGI or AI in general?
thanks,
Deepak
Have you heard about the Turing
Yes, but is there a competition like the XPrize or something that we can
work towards. ?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Panu Horsmalahti nawi...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/7/18 deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com
I wanted to know if there is any bench mark test that can really convince
majority
not really.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:41 AM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but is there a competition like the XPrize or something that we can
work towards. ?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Panu Horsmalahti nawi...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/7/18 deepakjnath
Jim,
I think you are using a different definition of well-defined :). I am
saying Solomonoff induction is totally well-defined as a mathematical
concept. You are saying it isn't well-defined as a computational entity.
These are both essentially true.
Why you might insist that program-space is
Deepak wrote on Sun, 18 Jul 2010:
I wanted to know if there is any bench mark test
that can really convince a majority of today's AGIers
that a System is true AGI?
Obvious AGI functionality is the default test for AGI.
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/AiMind.html
is an incipient AGI with
I realised that what is needed is a *joint* definition *and* range of tests of
AGI.
Benamin Johnston has submitted one valid test - the toy box problem. (See
archives).
I have submitted another still simpler valid test - build a rock wall from
rocks given, (or fill an earth hole with rocks).
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote:
Jim,
I think you are using a different definition of well-defined :). I am
saying Solomonoff induction is totally well-defined as a mathematical
concept. You are saying it isn't well-defined as a computational entity.
So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have no way of really knowing
it right?
Even if I believe that my system is a true AGI there is no way of convincing
the others irrefutably that this system is indeed a AGI not just an advanced
AI system.
I have read the toy box problem and rock wall
If you can't convince someone, clearly something is wrong with it. I don't
think a test is the right way to do this. Which is why I haven't commented
much. When you understand how to create AGI, it will be obvious that it is
AGI or that it is what you intend it to be. You'll then understand how
http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
From: David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sun, July 18, 2010 3:10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI
If you can't
Please explain/expound freely why you're not convinced - and indicate what
you expect, - and I'll reply - but it may not be till tomorrow.
Re your last point, there def. is no consensus on a general problem/test OR a
def. of AGI.
One flaw in your expectations seems to be a desire for a
Let me clarify. As you all know there are somethings computers are good at
doing and somethings that Humans can do but a computer cannot.
One of the test that I was thinking about recently is to have to movies show
to the AGI. Both movies will have the same story but it would be a totally
Deepak,
I think you would be much better off focusing on something more practical.
Understanding a movie and all the myriad things going on, their
significance, etc... that's AI complete. There is no way you are going to
get there without a hell of a lot of steps in between. So, you might as well
In my view the main obstacle to AGI is the understanding of Natural
Language. If we have NL comprehension we have the basis for doing a whole
host of marvellous things.
There is the Turing test. A good question to ask is What is the difference
between laying concrete at 50C and fighting Israel.
Ian,
Although most people see natural language as one of the most important parts
of AGI, if you think about it carefully, you'll realize that solving natural
language could be done with sufficient knowledge of the world and sufficient
ability to learn this knowledge automatically. That's why i
Jeez, no AI program can understand *two* consecutive *sentences* in a text -
can understand any text period - can understand language, period. And you want
an AGI that can understand a *story*. You don't seem to understand that
requires cognitively a fabulous, massively evolved, highly
Oh, I wanted to add one thing that I've learned recently. The core problem
of AGI is to come up with hypotheses (hopefully the right hypothesis or
one that is good enough is included) and then determine whether the
hypothesis is 1) acceptable and 2) better than other hypotheses. In
addition, you
Abram,
I was going to drop the discussion, but then I thought I figured out why you
kept trying to paper over the difference. Of course, our personal
disagreement is trivial; it isn't that important. But the problem with
Solomonoff Induction is that not only is the output hopelessly tangled and
Jim Bromer wrote:
The definition of all possible programs, like the definition of all
possible
mathematical functions, is not a proper mathematical problem that can be
comprehended in an analytical way.
Finding just the shortest program is close enough because it dominates the
probability.
Deepak,
An intermediate step is the reverse Turing test (RTT), wherein people or
teams of people attempt to emulate an AGI. I suspect that from such a
competition would come a better idea as to what to expect from an AGI.
I have attempted in the past to drum up interest in a RTT, but so far, no
Try this one ...
http://www.bentham.org/open/toaij/openaccess2.htm
If the test subject can be a scientist, it is an AGI.
cheers
colin
Steve Richfield wrote:
Deepak,
An intermediate step is the reverse Turing test (RTT), wherein
people or teams of people attempt to emulate an AGI. I suspect
Jim,
I'm still not sure what your point even is, which is probably why my
responses seem so strange to you. It still seems to me as if you are jumping
back and forth between different positions, like I said at the start of this
discussion.
You didn't answer why you think program space does not
Numbers combined together are a form of language that can form every
other language.
and...
If you insist on using a natural language, why don't you use the
language most natural to computers - ie code ( which can directly
translates to numbers - machine language ...)
Code is better because
25 matches
Mail list logo
