Daniel_Burfoot comments on Open Thread June 2010, Part 3 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Kevin 14 June 2010 06:14AM

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

Comments (606)

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

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 14 June 2010 08:46:16PM 2 points [-]

I disagree with this, basically because AI is a pre-paradigm science.

I am gratified to find that someone else shares this opinion.

What does an average AI prof know that a physics graduate who can code doesn't know?

A better way to phrase the question might be: what can an average AI prof. do that a physics graduate who can code, can't?

Comment deleted 14 June 2010 10:47:12PM [-]
Comment author: CarlShulman 15 June 2010 12:46:08PM 4 points [-]

I think that the closest we have seen is the ML revolution, but when you look at it, it is not new science, it is just statistics correctly applied.

Statistics vs machine learning: FIGHT!

Comment author: SilasBarta 15 June 2010 12:20:17AM 0 points [-]

Could you clarify exactly what Hutter has done that has advanced the frontier? I used to be very nearly a "Hutter enthusiast", but I eventually concluded that his entire work is:

"Here's a few general algorithms that are really good, but take way too long to be of any use whatsoever."

Am I missing something? Is there something of his I should read that will open my eyes to the ease of mechanizing intelligence?

Comment author: timtyler 15 June 2010 09:10:54PM 1 point [-]

This seems like a fairly reasonable description of the work's impact:

"Another theme that I picked up was how central Hutter’s AIXI and my work on the universal intelligence measure has become: Marcus and I were being cited in presentations so often that by the last day many of the speakers were simply using our first names. As usual there were plenty of people who disagree with our approach, however it was clear that our work has become a major landmark in the area."

Comment author: SilasBarta 16 June 2010 04:36:54PM 0 points [-]

But why does it get those numerous citations? What real-world, non-academic consequences have resulted from this massive usage of Hutter's intelligence definition, which would distinguish it from a mere mass frenzy?

Comment author: timtyler 16 June 2010 05:00:00PM *  0 points [-]

No time for a long explanation from me - but "universal intelligence" seems important partly since it shows how simple an intelligent agent can be - if you abstract away most of its complexity into a data-compression system. It is just a neat way to break down the problem.

Comment deleted 15 June 2010 08:33:33AM [-]
Comment author: timtyler 15 June 2010 09:07:39PM 0 points [-]

Surely everyone has been doing that from the beginning.