From: Peter de Blanc (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2009 - 15:07:45 MST
Benja Fallenstein wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Peter de Blanc <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I think "X simulates Y, therefore K(X) > K(Y)," is pretty unambiguous in its
>> meaning, and it's wrong.
> Well, given the context, I did read it as equivalent to your "it
> wouldn't be possible to pick out just one program of high Kolmogorov
> complexity, and only pay attention to it, while you yourself have low
> Kolmogorov complexity" :-)
He never said anything like that, and if he did, then I don't see how it
applies to an AI. Wouldn't an AI consider lots and lots of hypotheses,
rather than just one pre-programmed, complex hypothesis?
> On the other hand, as I said, the inequality needs to be non-strict
> (>=), so there's no contradiction.
No, the statement is still wrong, even with a non-strict inequality.
I'll mention again the example of a program which simulates every
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:03 MDT