From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Sun, 9/7/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Language modeling (was Re: [agi] draft for comment)
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Sunday, September 7, 2008, 9:15 AM
From: Matt
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Sat, 9/6/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Compression in itself has the overriding goal of reducing
storage bits.
Not the way I use it. The goal is to predict what the environment will
do next. Lossless compression is a way
--- On Sun, 9/7/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Language modeling (was Re: [agi] draft for comment)
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Sunday, September 7, 2008, 9:15 AM
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Sat, 9/6
. Intelligence is multi.
John
-Original Message-
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 6:39 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Language modeling (was Re: [agi] draft for comment)
--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like
--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to explain your ideas in detail.
As I said,
our different opinions on how to do AI come from our very
different
understanding of intelligence. I don't take
passing Turing Test as
my research goal (as explained
--- On Sat, 9/6/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Compression in itself has the overriding goal of reducing
storage bits.
Not the way I use it. The goal is to predict what the environment will do next.
Lossless compression is a way of measuring how well we are doing.
-- Matt Mahoney,
I won't argue against your preference test here, since this is a
big topic, and I've already made my position clear in the papers I
mentioned.
As for compression, yes every intelligent system needs to 'compress'
its experience in the sense of keeping the essence but using less
space. However, it
--- On Sat, 9/6/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for compression, yes every intelligent
system needs to 'compress'
its experience in the sense of keeping the essence
but using less
space. However, it is clearly not loseless. It is
even not what we
usually call loosy compression,
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess you still see NARS as using model-theoretic
semantics, so you
call it symbolic and contrast it with system
with sensors. This is
not correct --- see
--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NARS indeed can learn semantics before syntax --- see
http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.roadmap.pdf
Yes, I see this corrects many of the problems with Cyc and with traditional
language models. I didn't see a description of a mechanism
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NARS indeed can learn semantics before syntax --- see
http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.roadmap.pdf
Yes, I see this corrects many of the problems with Cyc and with
--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like to many existing AI works, my disagreement with you is
not that
much on the solution you proposed (I can see the value),
but on the
problem you specified as the goal of AI. For example, I
have no doubt
about the theoretical and
Matt,
Thanks for taking the time to explain your ideas in detail. As I said,
our different opinions on how to do AI come from our very different
understanding of intelligence. I don't take passing Turing Test as
my research goal (as explained in
13 matches
Mail list logo
