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.

JoshuaZ comments on Computation complexity of AGI design - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Squark 02 February 2015 08:05PM

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

Comments (69)

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

Comment author: JoshuaZ 03 February 2015 01:08:39AM 0 points [-]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've skimmed some of the AIXI stuff before and obviously didn't read it carefully enough.

Comment author: passive_fist 03 February 2015 04:29:38AM 1 point [-]

No problem; this is a common misconception. People often think general intelligence is harder than narrow intelligence. Actually the best general intelligent agent can be coded with a few hundred lines of C code. It's non-general intelligence that's hard. Especially, the kind of non-general intelligence that the human brain has (identifying objects visually, language, humor, status games) is extremely hard to code. The G in AGI means 'more general than a chess-playing robot, but less general than AIXI'