4 ms·

Did he just say you give us infinite CPU power? Why not bruteforce it then? Starting from the number 1 to number 2^800000000 for each program it generates by th

by chegra 13y ago

Did he just say you give us infinite CPU power? Why not bruteforce it then? Starting from the number 1 to number 2^800000000 for each program it generates by that number test the program[automated test] to see if it is intelligent. If intelligent then tell it produce a book. [Everything can be seen as a state space search.]

twoodfin 13y ago
[automated test] is the hard part.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  Not really. Just pick your favorite AI problem and see how well it does on that. Pick a bunch of AI problems and see how well it does on all of them. Weight the algorithms by simplicity if you are worried about it over-fitting.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    With this hypothetical infinite speed computer you will get solutions that are perfect matches for your test cases but essentially random for all other inputs.
    - marvin 13y ago
      I really don't see what's so controversial about this. The universe can, as far as our understanding of physics dictates, be simulated in finite computational time. This experiment dictates infinite computational time. Evolution is a purely physical process. Make up a series of tests more or equally complex to those evolution present, and you'll end up with intelligence - unless there happens to be something very, very special about human intelligence as opposed to other forms of intelligence. Humans are currently a local maximum in the space of intelligences which have been explored by evolution.
      - twoodfin 13y ago
        That's not a brute force approach, and would be a difficult engineering task all on its own, regardless of the infinite computational resources available.
    - voyou 13y ago
      Exactly. Saying that with infinite CPU power you could brute-force a solution is like saying the Library of Babel[1] contains every book ever written. True, in a sense, but not as useful as you might think. [1]: http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/library_of_babel.html http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/library_of_babel.htm...
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      As I said, weight by simplicity, forcing the algorithm to be as general as possible.
  - voyou 13y ago
    "Pick a bunch of AI problems and see how well it does on all of them." The problem is, you have infinite potential algorithms and a finite number of tests. This means you'll necessarily get algorithms that pass all your tests but fail at least one other test of intelligence. Because of this, your tests won't actually let you discover which of the generated algorithms is intelligent. Or, you could have an infinite number of tests, but if you have infinite tests for intelligence, you effectively already have an algorithm for intelligence (for any problem, just look up the answer in your list of tests), so, again, brute-forcing a solution isn't helpful.

by chegra 13y ago

twoodfin 13y ago

[automated test] is the hard part.

Houshalter 13y ago
Not really. Just pick your favorite AI problem and see how well it does on that. Pick a bunch of AI problems and see how well it does on all of them. Weight the algorithms by simplicity if you are worried about it over-fitting.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  With this hypothetical infinite speed computer you will get solutions that are perfect matches for your test cases but essentially random for all other inputs.
  - marvin 13y ago
    I really don't see what's so controversial about this. The universe can, as far as our understanding of physics dictates, be simulated in finite computational time. This experiment dictates infinite computational time. Evolution is a purely physical process. Make up a series of tests more or equally complex to those evolution present, and you'll end up with intelligence - unless there happens to be something very, very special about human intelligence as opposed to other forms of intelligence. Humans are currently a local maximum in the space of intelligences which have been explored by evolution.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      That's not a brute force approach, and would be a difficult engineering task all on its own, regardless of the infinite computational resources available.
  - voyou 13y ago
    Exactly. Saying that with infinite CPU power you could brute-force a solution is like saying the Library of Babel[1] contains every book ever written. True, in a sense, but not as useful as you might think. [1]: http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/library_of_babel.html http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/library_of_babel.htm...
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    As I said, weight by simplicity, forcing the algorithm to be as general as possible.
- voyou 13y ago
  "Pick a bunch of AI problems and see how well it does on all of them." The problem is, you have infinite potential algorithms and a finite number of tests. This means you'll necessarily get algorithms that pass all your tests but fail at least one other test of intelligence. Because of this, your tests won't actually let you discover which of the generated algorithms is intelligent. Or, you could have an infinite number of tests, but if you have infinite tests for intelligence, you effectively already have an algorithm for intelligence (for any problem, just look up the answer in your list of tests), so, again, brute-forcing a solution isn't helpful.