= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SimonF comments on The Irrationality Game - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (910)
I don't care about that specific formulation of the idea; maybe Robin Hanson's formulation that there exists no "grand unified theory of intelligence" is clearer? (link)
Clear - but also clearly wrong. Robin Hanson says:
...but the answer seems simple. A big part of "betterness" is the ability to perform inductive inference, which is not a human-specific concept. We do already have a powerful theory about that, which we discovered in the last 50 years. It doesn't immediately suggest implementation strategy - which is what we need. So: more discoveries relating to this seem likely.
Clearly, I do not understand how this data point should influence my estimate of the probablity that general, computationally tractable methods exist.
To me it seems a lot like the question of whether general, computationally tractable methods of compression exist.
Provided you are allowed to assume that the expected inputs obey some vaguely-sensible version of Occam's razor, I would say that the answer is just "yes, they do".