Harder classes are subsets of NP-hard, and everything in NP-hard is hard enough to make the point.
Are you sure you want to make that claim? That all harder classes are subsets of NP-hard?
No, carelessness on my part. Doesn't affect my original point, that schemes for approximating Solomonoff or AIXI look like at least exponential brute force search.
You try to find a method that solves enough examples of the NP-hard problem well enough to sell the solutions, such that your more bounded ambition puts you back in the realm of P. This is done all the time -- freight scheduling software, for example. Or airline ticket price searching. Part of designing optimising compilers is not attempting analyses that take insanely long.
This is exactly the point made for computable approximations to AIXI.
Since AIXI is, by construction, the best possible intelligent agent, all work on AGI can, in a rather useless sense, be described as an approximation to AIXI. To the extent that such an attempt works (i.e. gets substantially further than past attempts at AGI), it will be because of new ideas not discovered by brute force search, not because it approximates AIXI.
Fantastic! I claim my extra 43 years of life.
43 years is a poor sort of immortality.
schemes for approximating Solomonoff or AIXI look like at least exponential brute force search.
Well, yeah. Again - why would you expect anything else? Given that there exist problems which require that or worse for solution? How can a universal problem solver do any better?
Since AIXI is, by construction, the best possible intelligent agent, all work on AGI can, in a rather useless sense, be described as an approximation to AIXI.
Yes.
...To the extent that such an attempt works (i.e. gets substantially further than past attempts at AGI), it will be beca
Here's the new thread for posting quotes, with the usual rules: