3 ms·

>Start collecting data and start trying to quantitatively predict things One can't start collecting data until one knows what to measure and why. We normally s

>Start collecting data and start trying to quantitatively predict things One can't start collecting data until one knows what to measure and why. We normally start with problems. Psychologists have made little progress, as far as I can tell, because they unwittingly chose a hard problem: how does a general problem-solver work? They've actually been trying to solve AGI but without the tools of computer science. >The human brain is one of the most complex objects in the known universe Otter hardware seems good enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGTzclrsujA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGTzclrsujA

Xcelerate 8y ago
> We normally start with problems. I never said we didn't. Why would anyone collect data without knowing the problem that it will be used for? That's implicit. I don't need to directly state the obvious. > Otter hardware seems good enough Ok, here's a technical description of what I meant by "complex object": an object whose output is in theory capable of being represented by a universal Turing machine that is significantly shorter in length than the output itself but is still longer than the output of other objects that humanity has interacted with and is capable of observing. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the Kolmogorov complexity of an otter's brain is greater than that of a human's.
- winchling 8y ago
  >I never said we didn't. Why would anyone collect data without knowing the problem that it will be used for? It bears emphasis because trying to measure stuff without new theories has been a besetting problem in fields such as psychology and medical research and I think a major reason why many studies can't be reproduced. >I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the Kolmogorov complexity of an otter's brain is greater than that of a human's. Yes. But my point is that we wouldn't need to understand much about how human hardware works if we could only understand how an otter brain works. Beyond that the complexity is due to human culture/memes, which we study in their own right anyhow (in fields such as history, politics, literature).

Xcelerate 8y ago

> We normally start with problems. I never said we didn't. Why would anyone collect data without knowing the problem that it will be used for? That's implicit. I don't need to directly state the obvious. > Otter hardware seems good enough Ok, here's a technical description of what I meant by "complex object": an object whose output is in theory capable of being represented by a universal Turing machine that is significantly shorter in length than the output itself but is still longer than the output of other objects that humanity has interacted with and is capable of observing. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the Kolmogorov complexity of an otter's brain is greater than that of a human's.

winchling 8y ago
>I never said we didn't. Why would anyone collect data without knowing the problem that it will be used for? It bears emphasis because trying to measure stuff without new theories has been a besetting problem in fields such as psychology and medical research and I think a major reason why many studies can't be reproduced. >I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the Kolmogorov complexity of an otter's brain is greater than that of a human's. Yes. But my point is that we wouldn't need to understand much about how human hardware works if we could only understand how an otter brain works. Beyond that the complexity is due to human culture/memes, which we study in their own right anyhow (in fields such as history, politics, literature).