You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Vladimir_Nesov comments on Shane Legg's Thesis: Machine Superintelligence, Opinions? - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: Zetetic 08 May 2011 08:04PM

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

Comments (45)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 09 May 2011 07:29:44PM 1 point [-]

This is a bad argument, since the best available option isn't necessarily a good option.

Comment author: Zetetic 09 May 2011 07:52:40PM *  1 point [-]

This is what I was thinking, investing too much time and energy in AIXI simply because it seems to be the most 'obvious' option currently available could blind you to other avenues of approach.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 09 May 2011 08:01:09PM 2 points [-]

I think you should know the central construction, it's simple enough (half of Hutter's "gentle introduction" would suffice). But at least read some good textbooks (such as AIMA) that give you overview of the field before charting exploration of primary literature (not sure if you mentioned before what's your current background).

Comment author: Zetetic 09 May 2011 09:00:34PM *  2 points [-]

I own a copy of AIMA, though I admittedly haven't read it from cover to cover. I did an independent study learning/coding some basic AI stuff about a year ago, the professor introduced me to AIMA.

not sure if you mentioned before what's your current background

It's a bit difficult to summarize. Is sort of did so here, but I didn't include a lot of detail.

I suppose I could try to hit a few specifics; I was jumping around The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks for a bit, I picked up the overviews and read a few of the articles, but haven't really come back to it yet; I've read a good number of articles from the MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science; I've read a (small) portion of "Theoretical Neuroscience: Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Neural Systems" (I ended up ultimately delving too far into molecular biology and organic chem so I abandoned it for the time being, though I would like to look at Comp Neurosci again, maybe using From Neuron to Brain instead, seems more approachable); I read a bit "Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience: The Geometry of Excitability and Bursting" partly to get a sense of just how much current computational models of neurons might diverge from actual neuronal behavior but mostly to get an idea of some alternatives.

As I mentioned in my response to timtyler, I tend to cycle through my readings quite a bit. I like to pick up a small cluster of ideas and let them sink in and move on to something else, coming back to the material later if it still seems relevant to my interests. Once it's popped up a few times I make a more concerted effort to learn it. In any event My main goal over the past few months was to try to get a better overview of a large amount of material relevant to FAI.