= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
army1987 comments on Recognizing Intelligence - 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 (30)
Using this definition, everything containing the same number of atoms would be equally complex; you have to specify where each atom is. This does not feel correct. The authors modified the word complexity to something meaningless; and it most likely did not happen accidentally.
Not really. You can describe a diamond of pure carbon-12 at 0 K with much less information than that. (But IAWYC -- there should be some measure of ‘complexity I care about’ by which music would rank higher than both silence (zero information-theoretical complexity) and white noise (maximum complexity).)
How about the measures 'sophistication' or 'logical depth'? Alternately, you could take a Schmidhuber tack and define interestingness as the derivative of compression rate.