3 ms·
If you reduce the definition to "something that gets better", then yes. But for a learning machine to really qualify, it has to be getting better by proving tha
by Jeff_Brown 8y ago
If you reduce the definition to "something that gets better", then yes. But for a learning machine to really qualify, it has to be getting better by proving that the next state is better than the current state before adopting it.
- schoen 8y agoNot only do human beings not do this, but we actually exhibit inconsistency, change our goals unpredictably, and can be deceived by ourselves or others about our goals and motives.
- visarga 8y agoYeah, we're more like reinforcement learning agents than Godel machines. If something apparently works, we do it, even when it is not supported by reason. What matters is to learn to act in such a way as to continue to exist, not to learn the truth. Of course we have to reconcile with reality when we stray too much. Humanity has flourished long before we invented the scientific method, and even today we're not applying it universally.