4 ms·
>So if you think humans are AGI, which you seem to do, then clearly such a state can be achieved with disappointing generalization capabilities. Not sure what
by sova 8y ago
>So if you think humans are AGI, which you seem to do, then clearly such a state can be achieved with disappointing generalization capabilities.
Not sure what AGI means.
Yeah, you make a strong point that there are axiomatic must-knows for any domain, and generalization would require some level well above -- or some layer well abstracted from -- this axiomatic knowledge.
- candiodari 8y agoIt took a few hours of filtering mistakes out of my kids to make me think about this. I was supportive (I hope), but internally I was thinking about it. The thing is the most difficult mistake was 5+3 being 14. I tried teaching them to approach the problem from different angles. 3+5 ? Fine. 4+3 ? Right. 6+3 ? Right. 5+3 ? 14 ... it took hours. In kids, most mistakes are corrected quickly, but a few persist. That reminded me that I have a few choice mistakes that lasted an incredibly long time despite getting corrected again and again and making no real amount of sense (meaning I know dozens of ways to calculate them, and I know how the numbers progress and I know how to use distribution to solve it, to "move the beans" (5 + 7 = 5 + 5 + 2 = 10 + 2 = 12. They present that logic, doing the tens first, as moving beans around. Which makes sense), and yet, there's a few mistakes that stuck. So you have a lot of time to think while correcting one of these sticky mistakes.