Re: [agi] Flow charts? Source Code? .. Computing Intelligence? How too? ................. ping
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:23:54AM +0200, Shane Legg wrote: When measuring the intelligence of a human or other animal you have to use an appropriate test -- clearly cats can't solve linguistic Cats and people share common capabilities, which can be tested for by the same test. A human or a dog fetching a stick is very much the same thing. problems and even if they could they can't use a pen to write down their answer. Thus intelligence tests need to take into account the Clearly behaviour evaluation to assess task completion applies to any system in any environment. In most environments, a human observer would evaluate very well, especially if the it's an interactive learning and/or reward/punishment scenario requiring communication. environment that the agent needs to deal with, the ways in which it can interact with its environment, and also what types of cognitive abilities might reasonably be expected. However it seems unlikely that AIs will be restricted to having senses, cognitive abilities or environments that are like those of humans or other animals. As AIs are built to solve tasks. Calling human sensory capabilities in comparison to an AI restricted gives reason to some serious amusement. There are some very very few domains where AI excel in perception (sniffing packets, operating in multidimensional spaces and similiar), but they're not AGIs. They're very brittle, domain-specific problem solvers. such the ways in which we measure intelligence, and indeed our whole notion of what intelligence is, needs to be expanded to accommodate this. Once AGI perform as well as animal or human subjects in task completion you don't have to worry about defining intelligence metrics. You'd be too busy with trying to stay alive. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [agi] Flow charts? Source Code? .. Computing Intelligence? How too? ................. ping
Hmmm... About the measurement of general intelligence in AGI's ... I would tend to advocate a vectorial intelligence approach I tend to think that quantitatively or otherwise precisely defining and measuring general intelligence -- as a single number -- is a bit of a conceptual and pragmatic dead end. Certainly, it is useful to (quantitatively or qualitatively) evaluate the performance of an AGI on various tasks in various domains ... But, combining task performance scores into a single overall intelligence metric can be done in so many different ways, it becomes a largely arbitrary exercise IMO. I would place a bit more faith in a multiple intelligences approach, wherein cognitive-focus-specific intelligences are defined precisely and measured, but one doesn't focus on combining them into a single score. For instance, one might measure: pure-mathematics intelligence, applied-mathematics intelligence, music-composition intelligence, rhetoric intelligence, ethical intelligence, etc. Defining focus-specific intelligences like this in a precise and measurable way seems difficult but probably tractable. The value of combining such measures into an overall general intelligence measure seems dubious. One might also define a domain-transcending intelligence, measured by supplying a system with tasks involving learning how to solve problems in totally new areas it has never seen before. This would be very hard to measure but perhaps not impossible. However, in my view, this domain-transcending intelligence -- though perhaps the most critical part of general intelligence -- should still be considered as one among many components of general intelligence, together with a variety of focus-specific intelligences as defined above. Domain-transcending intelligence is just one component of the multiple-intelligence vector. -- Ben --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Flow charts? Source Code? .. Computing Intelligence? How too? ................. ping
On 7/25/06, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm...About the measurement of general intelligence in AGI's ...I would tend to advocate a vectorial intelligence approachI'm not against a vector approach. Naturally every intelligent system will have domains in which it is stronger than others.Knowing what these are is useful and important. A single numbercan't capture this. One might also define a domain-transcending intelligence, measuredby supplying a system with tasks involving learning how to solveproblems in totally new areas it has never seen before.This would be very hard to measure but perhaps not impossible.However, in my view, this domain-transcending intelligence -- thoughperhaps the most critical part of general intelligence -- should I think this most critical part, as you put it, is what's missing ina lot of AI systems. It's why people look at a machine that cansolve difficult calculus problems in the blink of a second and say that it's not really intelligent.This is the reason I think there's value in having an overall generalmeasure of intelligence --- to highlight the need to put the G backinto AI.Shane To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Flow charts? Source Code? .. Computing Intelligence? How too? ................. ping
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 07:48:10PM +0200, Shane Legg wrote: After some months looking around for tests of intelligence for machines what I found Why would machines need a different test of intelligence than people or animals? Stick them into the Skinner box, make them solve mazes, make them find food and collaborate with others in task-solving, etc. The nice thing is that people build environments where machines and people can interact in a virtual environment, they only call them games for some strange reason. was... not very much. Few people have proposed tests of intelligence for machines, and other than the Turing test, none of these test have been developed or used much. Naturally I'd like universal intelligence, that Hutter and myself have formulated, to lead to a practical test that was widely used. However making the test practical poses a number of problems, the most significant of which, I think, is the sensitivity that universal intelligence has to the choice of reference universal Turing machine. Maybe, with more insights, this problem can be, if not solved, at least dealt with in a reasonably acceptable way? Shane -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [agi] Flow charts? Source Code? .. Computing Intelligence? How too? ................. ping
James,Currently I'm writing a much longer paper (about 40 pages) on intelligencemeasurement. A draft version of this will be ready in about a month whichI hope to circulate around a bit for comments and criticism. There is also another guy who has recently come to my attention who is doing verysimilar stuff. He has a 50 page paper on formal measures of machineintelligence that should be coming out in coming months.I'll make a post here when either of these papers becomes available. Shane To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Flow charts? Source Code? .. Computing Intelligence? How too? ................. ping
On 7/13/06, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shane,Do you mean Warren Smith?Yes.Shane To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Flow charts? Source Code? .. Computing Intelligence? How too? ................. ping
Shane, Thanks, I would appreciate that greatly.On the topic of measuring intelligence, what do you think about the actual structure of comparison of some of today's AI systems. I would like to see someone come up with and get support for a general fairly widespread set of test s for general AI other than the turing test. I have recently been working with some testing stuff with the KM from UT. It and two other systems took and passed a AP exam for chemistry, which, though limited, is an impressive feat itself.James RatcliffShane Legg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James,Currently I'm writing a much longer paper (about 40 pages) on intelligencemeasurement. A draft version of this will be ready in about a month whichI hope to circulate around a bit for comments and criticism. There is also another guy who has recently come to my attention who is doing verysimilar stuff. He has a 50 page paper on formal measures of machineintelligence that should be coming out in coming months.I'll make a post here when either of these papers becomes available. Shane To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank YouJames Ratcliffhttp://falazar.com How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates. To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Flow charts? Source Code? .. Computing Intelligence? How too? ................. ping
I think that public learning/training of an AGI would be a terrible disaster... Look at what happened with OpenMind and MindPixel These projects allowed the public to upload knowledge into them, which resulted in a lot of knowledge of the general nature Jennifer Lopez got a nice butt, etc. Jason Hutchens once showed me two versions of his statistical learning based conversation system, MegaHal. One was trained by him, the other by random web-surfers. The former displayed some occasional apparent intelligence, the latter constantly spewed amusing but eventually boring junk about penises and such. I had the idea once to teach an AI system in Lojban, and then let random Lojban speakers over the Web interact with it to teach it. This might work, because the barrier to entry is so high. Anyone who has bothered to learn Lojban is probably a serious nerd and wouldn't feel like filling the AI's mind with a bunch of junk. Of course, I haven't bothered to learn Lojban well yet, though ;-( ... -- Ben On 7/13/06, James Ratcliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While AIXI is all a bit pie in the sky, mathematical philosophy if you like, I think the above does however highlight something of practical importance: Even if your AI is incomputably super powerful, like AIXI, the training and education of the AI is still really important. Very few people spend time thinking about how to teach and train a baby AI. I think this is a greatly ignored aspect of AI. Agree, but there is a reason: before a baby AI is actually built, not to much can be said about its education. For example, assume both AIXI and NARS are successfully built, they will need to be educated in quite different ways (though there will be some similarity), given the different design. I'll worry about education after the details of the system are relatively stable. Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While AIXI is all a bit pie in the sky, mathematical philosophy if you like, I think the above does however highlight something of practical importance: Even if your AI is incomputably super powerful, like AIXI, the training and education of the AI is still really important. Very few people spend time thinking about how to teach and train a baby AI. I think this is a greatly ignored aspect of AI. Agree, but there is a reason: before a baby AI is actually built, not to much can be said about its education. For example, assume both AIXI and NARS are successfully built, they will need to be educated in quite different ways (though there will be some similarity), given the different design. I'll worry about education after the details of the system are relatively stable. Pei, I think you are right that the process of education and mental development is going to be different for different types of AGI systems. However, I don't think it has to be dramatically different for each very specific AGI design. And I don't think one has to wait till one has a working AGI to put serious analysis into its psychological development and instruction. In the context of Novamente, I have put a lot of thought into how mental development should occur for AGI systems that are -- heavily based on uncertain inference -- embodied in a real or simulated world where they get to interact with other agents Novamente falls into this category, but so do other AGI designs. A few of my and Stephan Bugaj's thoughts on this are described here: http://www.agiri.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=158 and here: http://www.novamente.net/engine/ (see Stage of Cognitive Development...) I have a whole lot of informal notes written down on AGI Developmental Psychology, extending the general ideas in this presentation/paper, and will probably write them up as a manuscript one day... -- Ben --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pei, I think you are right that the process of education and mental development is going to be different for different types of AGI systems. However, I don't think it has to be dramatically different for each very specific AGI design. And I don't think one has to wait till one has a working AGI to put serious analysis into its psychological development and instruction. In the context of Novamente, I have put a lot of thought into how mental development should occur for AGI systems that are -- heavily based on uncertain inference -- embodied in a real or simulated world where they get to interact with other agents Novamente falls into this category, but so do other AGI designs. A few of my and Stephan Bugaj's thoughts on this are described here: http://www.agiri.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=158 and here: http://www.novamente.net/engine/ (see Stage of Cognitive Development...) I have a whole lot of informal notes written down on AGI Developmental Psychology,
Re: [agi] Flow charts? Source Code? .. Computing Intelligence? How too? ................. ping
Ben, Yes, but OpenMind did get quite a bit of usable information into it as well, and mainly they learned a lot about the process. I believe, and they are looking at as well, different ways of grading the participants themselves, so the obviously juvienile ones could be graded down and out of the system. Likewise the processes themselves could be graded as to functionality and correctness, with the ability of a user to look at multiple task processes like "Pick up the Ball" and vote on ones that are more functional.At the very least, I would like to open it up to a number of people, and that would speed along the creation of many processes faster than I alone could ever do.James RatcliffBen Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that public learning/training of an AGI would be a terrible disaster...Look at what happened with OpenMind and MindPixel These projectsallowed the public to upload knowledge into them, which resulted in alot of knowledge of the general nature "Jennifer Lopez got a nicebutt", etc.Jason Hutchens once showed me two versions of his statistical learningbased conversation system, MegaHal. One was trained by him, the otherby random web-surfers. The former displayed some occasional apparentintelligence, the latter constantly spewed amusing but eventuallyboring junk about penises and such.I had the idea once to teach an AI system in Lojban, and then letrandom Lojban speakers over the Web interact with it to teach it.This might work, because the barrier to entry is so high. Anyone whohas bothered to learn Lojban is probably a serious nerd and wouldn'tfeel like filling the AI's mind with a bunch of junk. Of course, Ihaven't bothered to learn Lojban well yet, though ;-( ...-- BenOn 7/13/06, James Ratcliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:While AIXI is all a bit pie in the sky, "mathematical philosophy" if you like, I think the above does however highlight something of practical importance: Even if your AI is incomputably super powerful, like AIXI, the training and education of the AI is still really important. Very few people spend time thinking about how to teach and train a baby AI. I think this is a greatly ignored aspect of AI. Agree, but there is a reason: before a "baby AI" is actually built, not to much can be said about its education. For example, assume both AIXI and NARS are successfully built, they will need to be educated in quite different ways (though there will be some similarity), given the different design. I'll worry about education after the details of the system are relatively stable. Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:While AIXI is all a bit pie in the sky, "mathematical philosophy" if you like, I think the above does however highlight something of practical importance: Even if your AI is incomputably super powerful, like AIXI, the training and education of the AI is still really important. Very few people spend time thinking about how to teach and train a baby AI. I think this is a greatly ignored aspect of AI. Agree, but there is a reason: before a "baby AI" is actually built, not to much can be said about its education. For example, assume both AIXI and NARS are successfully built, they will need to be educated in quite different ways (though there will be some similarity), given the different design. I'll worry about education after the details of the system are relatively stable. Pei, I think you are right that the process of education and mental development is going to be different for different types of AGI systems. However, I don't think it has to be dramatically different for each very specific AGI design. And I don't think one has to wait till one has a working AGI to put serious analysis into its psychological development and instruction. In the context of Novamente, I have put a lot of thought into how mental development should occur for AGI systems that are -- heavily based on uncertain inference -- embodied in a real or simulated world where they get to interact with other agents Novamente falls into this category, but so do other AGI designs. A few of my and Stephan Bugaj's thoughts on this are described here: http://www.agiri.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=158 and here: http://www.novamente.net/engine/ (see "Stage of Cognitive Development...") I have a whole lot of informal notes written down on AGI Developmental Psychology, extending the general ideas in this presentation/paper, and will probably write them up as a manuscript one day... -- Ben --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pei, I think you are right that the process of education and mental development is going to be different for different types of AGI systems. However, I don't think it has to be dramatically different for each very specific AGI design. And I don't think one has to wait
Re: [agi] Flow charts? Source Code? .. Computing Intelligence? How too? ................. ping
I agree that using the Net to recruit a team of volunteer AGI teachers would be a good idea. But opening the process up to random web-surfers is, IMO, asking for trouble...! -- Ben On 7/13/06, James Ratcliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben, Yes, but OpenMind did get quite a bit of usable information into it as well, and mainly they learned a lot about the process. I believe, and they are looking at as well, different ways of grading the participants themselves, so the obviously juvienile ones could be graded down and out of the system. Likewise the processes themselves could be graded as to functionality and correctness, with the ability of a user to look at multiple task processes like Pick up the Ball and vote on ones that are more functional. At the very least, I would like to open it up to a number of people, and that would speed along the creation of many processes faster than I alone could ever do. James Ratcliff Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that public learning/training of an AGI would be a terrible disaster... Look at what happened with OpenMind and MindPixel These projects allowed the public to upload knowledge into them, which resulted in a lot of knowledge of the general nature Jennifer Lopez got a nice butt, etc. Jason Hutchens once showed me two versions of his statistical learning based conversation system, MegaHal. One was trained by him, the other by random web-surfers. The former displayed some occasional apparent intelligence, the latter constantly spewed amusing but eventually boring junk about penises and such. I had the idea once to teach an AI system in Lojban, and then let random Lojban speakers over the Web interact with it to teach it. This might work, because the barrier to entry is so high. Anyone who has bothered to learn Lojban is probably a serious nerd and wouldn't feel like filling the AI's mind with a bunch of junk. Of course, I haven't bothered to learn Lojban well yet, though ;-( ... -- Ben On 7/13/06, James Ratcliff wrote: Ben Goertzel wrote: While AIXI is all a bit pie in the sky, mathematical philosophy if you like, I think the above does however highlight something of practical importance: Even if your AI is incomputably super powerful, like AIXI, the training and education of the AI is still really important. Very few people spend time thinking about how to teach and train a baby AI. I think this is a greatly ignored aspect of AI. Agree, but there is a reason: before a baby AI is actually built, not to much can be said about its education. For example, assume both AIXI and NARS are successfully built, they will need to be educated in quite different ways (though there will be some similarity), given the different design. I'll worry about education after the details of the system are relatively stable. Ben Goertzel wrote: While AIXI is all a bit pie in the sky, mathematical philosophy if you like, I think the above does however highlight something of practical importance: Even if your AI is incomputably super powerful, like AIXI, the training and education of the AI is still really important. Very few people spend time thinking about how to teach and train a baby AI. I think this is a greatly ignored aspect of AI. Agree, but there is a reason: before a baby AI is actually built, not to much can be said about its education. For example, assume both AIXI and NARS are successfully built, they will need to be educated in quite different ways (though there will be some similarity), given the different design. I'll worry about education after the details of the system are relatively stable. Pei, I think you are right that the process of education and mental development is going to be different for different types of AGI systems. However, I don't think it has to be dramatically different for each very specific AGI design. And I don't think one has to wait till one has a working AGI to put serious analysis into its psychological development and instruction. In the context of Novamente, I have put a lot of thought into how mental development should occur for AGI systems that are -- heavily based on uncertain inference -- embodied in a real or simulated world where they get to interact with other agents Novamente falls into this category, but so do other AGI designs. A few of my and Stephan Bugaj's thoughts on this are described here: http://www.agiri.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=158 and here: http://www.novamente.net/engine/ (see Stage of Cognitive Development...) I have a whole lot of informal notes written down on AGI Developmental Psychology, extending the general ideas in this presentation/paper, and will probably write them up as a manuscript one day... -- Ben --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL
Re: [agi] Flow charts? Source Code? .. Computing Intelligence? How too? ................. ping
Ben, Though Piaget is my favorite psychologist, I don't think his theory on Developmental Psychology applies to AI to the extent you suggested. One major reason is: in a human baby, the mental learning process in the mind and the biological developing process in the brain happen together, while in AI the former will occur within a mostly fixed hardware system. Also, an AI system doesn't have to first develop capabilities responsible for the survival of a human baby. As a result, for example, Novamente can do some abstract inference (a formal stage activity) before being able to recognize complicated patterns (an infantile stage activity). Of course, certain general principles of education will remain, such as to teach simple topics before difficult ones, to combine lectures with questions and exercises, to explain abstract materials with concrete examples, and so on, but I don't think we can get too much details with confidence. As for AIXI, since its input comes from a finite perception space and a real-number reward space, its output is selected from a fixed action space, and for a given history (past input and output) there is a fixed (though unknown) probability for each possible input to occur, the best training strategy will be very different from the case of Novamente, which is not based on such assumptions. Given the different research goals and assumptions about the interaction between the system and the environment, different AGI systems will have very different training/educating strategies, which are similar to each other only in a very vague sense. Furthermore, since all the systems are far from mature, any design change will require corresponding change in training. On the contrary, we cannot decide a training process first, then design the system accordingly. For these reasons, I'd rather not to spend too much time on training now, though I fully agree that it will become a major issue in the future. Pei On 7/13/06, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pei, That is actually not correct... I would teach a baby AIXI about the same way I would teach a baby Novamente, but I assume the former would learn a lot faster... so the various stages of instruction would be passed through a lot more quickly Furthermore, I expect that the same cognitive structures that would develop within a Novamente during its learning process, would also develop within an AIXI during its learning process -- though in the AIXI these cognitive structures would exist within the currently active program being used to choose behaviors (due to its being chosen as optimal during AIXI's program space search). Please note that both AIXI and Novamente are explicitly based on uncertain probabilistic inference, so that in spite of the significant differences between the two (e.g. the latter can run on feasible computational infrastructure, and is much more complicated due to the need to fulfill this requirement), there is also a significant commonality. -- Ben On 7/13/06, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben, For example, I guess most of your ideas about how to train Novamente cannot be applied to AIXI. ;-) Pei Pei, I think you are right that the process of education and mental development is going to be different for different types of AGI systems. However, I don't think it has to be dramatically different for each very specific AGI design. And I don't think one has to wait till one has a working AGI to put serious analysis into its psychological development and instruction. In the context of Novamente, I have put a lot of thought into how mental development should occur for AGI systems that are -- heavily based on uncertain inference -- embodied in a real or simulated world where they get to interact with other agents Novamente falls into this category, but so do other AGI designs. A few of my and Stephan Bugaj's thoughts on this are described here: http://www.agiri.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=158 and here: http://www.novamente.net/engine/ (see Stage of Cognitive Development...) I have a whole lot of informal notes written down on AGI Developmental Psychology, extending the general ideas in this presentation/paper, and will probably write them up as a manuscript one day... -- Ben --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] Flow charts? Source Code? .. Computing Intelligence? How too? ................. ping
On 06/07/06, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/6/06, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How would you define the sorts of tasks humans are designed to carry out? I can't see an easy way of categorising all the problems individual humans have shown there worth at, such as key-hole surgery, fighter piloting, cryptography and quantum physics. Well, there are two timescales involved, that of the species and that of the individual. The short answer to the first question is: survival in Stone Age tribes on the plains of Africa. That this produced an entity that can do all the things on your list invokes something between wonder and existential paranoia depending on one's mood and predilections. Wonder for me. This long timescale viewpoint is useful because it tells us that there will be lots of programming in humans that is not useful for a robot/computer to act and survive in the real world. For example blindly copying a baby human neural net to a electronic robot wouldn't be smart. it wouldn't have the inherent fear/knowledge to stay away from water that it would need. (The absence of any steps of the Great Filter between the Tertiary and the Cold War is a common assumption - but it is only an assumption. But I digress.) On the individual timescale we're programmable general purpose problem solvers: This is an interesting term. If we could define what it means precisely we would be a long way to building a useful system. What do you think the closest system humanity has created to a pgpps is? A generic PC almost fulfils the description, programmable, generic and if given the right software to start with can solve problems. But I am guessing it is missing something. As someone interested in RL systems I would say an overarching goal system for guiding programmability, but I would be interested to know what you think. We're good at learning from our environment, but that only gets you so far, by itself it won't let you do any of the above things because you'll be dead before you get the hang of them. So this whittles away AIXI and similar formalisms from the possible candidates for being a pgpps. However, our environment also contains other people and we can do any of the above by learning the solutions other people worked out. Agreed. I definately think this is where a lot of work needs to be done. There is a variety of different methods we can learn from others. Copying others, getting instruction even just knowing something is possible can enable you to get to the same end point without exact copying, e.g. building an Atom bomb. Will Pearson --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
