Daniel_Burfoot comments on Link: Strong Inference - Less Wrong

9 Post author: Daniel_Burfoot 23 May 2010 02:49AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (54)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 23 May 2010 03:53:41PM 3 points [-]

I think there is a science of intelligence which (in my opinion) is closely related to computation, biology, and production functions (in the economic sense).

Interesting that you're taking into account the economic angle. Is it related to Eric Baum's ideas (e.g. "Manifesto for an evolutionary economics of intelligence")?

The difficulty is that there is much debate as to what constitutes intelligence: there aren't any easily definable results in the field of intelligence nor are there clear definitions.

Right, so in Kuhnian terms, AI is in a pre-paradigm phase where there is no consensus on definitions or frameworks, and so normal science cannot occur. That implies to me that people should spend much more time thinking about candidate paradigms and conceptual frameworks, and less time doing technical research that is unattached to any paradigm (or attached to a candidate paradigm that is obviously flawed).

Comment author: marks 23 May 2010 05:09:29PM 2 points [-]

It actually comes from Peter Norvig's definition that AI is simply good software, a comment that Robin Hanson made: , and the general theme of Shane Legg's definitions: which are ways of achieving particular goals.

I would also emphasize that the foundations of statistics can (and probably should) be framed in terms of decision theory (See DeGroot, "Optimal Statistical Decisions" for what I think is the best book on the topic, as a further note the decision-theoretic perspective is neither frequentist nor Bayesian: those two approaches can be understood through decision theory). The notion of an AI as being like an automated statistician captures at least the spirit of how I think about what I'm working on and this requires fundamentally economic thinking (in terms of the tradeoffs) as well as notions of utility.

Comment author: timtyler 23 May 2010 05:20:03PM 0 points [-]

Surely Peter Norvig never said that!

Comment author: marks 23 May 2010 11:05:20PM 1 point [-]

Go to 1:00 minute here

"Building the best possible programs" is what he says.

Comment author: timtyler 24 May 2010 06:54:06AM *  0 points [-]

Ah, what he means is having an agent which will sort through the available programs - and quickly find one that efficiently does the specified task.