From: J. Andrew Rogers (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Mar 17 2005 - 11:03:02 MST
Marc Geddes wrote:
> Any AGI worth its salt would be absorbing knowledge
> far faster than it could apply Bayes theorem to. It
> would quickly run into computational intractibility
> and have to apply ever greater ingenuity in order to
> find approximations and short-cuts in order to carry
> on reasoning.
> It is not human reasoning that is broken. It is Bayes
> theorem that is broken.
What the hell are you talking about? These are not real arguments or
technical points, for the nth time, and piping /dev/random through
Babelfish and sending it to sl4 does not help the signal-to-noise ratio.
If there are compelling reasons for making these assertions -- and
intuition is not a compelling reason -- then please remember to attach
them next time. Throw us a bone here; few of us can hope to share your
natural insight into these matters.
j. andrew rogers
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT