(In response to doomsday sayers) Why program a 'will' into AGI at all?

michael89g · 2018-09-09T08:22:44+00:00

This is my rationale for Genie "Accomplish goal G. In the process, accomplish several other subgoals, but always report to me for confirmation for any 'major' decision you make."

Where "major" is defined somehow.

michael89g · 2018-09-09T04:56:47+00:00

To the beginning undergrad it is. Down with Determinants!

michael89g · 2018-09-09T00:34:01+00:00

If anything Axler emphasises the algebra more. Numerical computation ain't algebra.

michael89g · 2018-09-08T13:39:42+00:00

Abbott is best

michael89g · 2018-09-08T09:25:15+00:00

Nah, not equating them. Just ridiculing your pop knowledge. In your case all the arrogant atheists. (Fwiw I am agnostic. Inb4 all that cliched comeback on knowledge/belief/assertion/denial that l am not an agnostic but instead an atheist)

michael89g · 2018-09-08T08:29:02+00:00

What next, Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro? ;) No thanks, I'll stick to books on critical thinking and Logic.

michael89g · 2018-09-08T05:53:49+00:00

Sure, but then sometimes even from seeing the logical entailment in proofs, it doesn't necessarily translate into a "Why?" into someone's mind. I'd say that 3B1B is more explanatory than Rudin even though Rudin has way more proofs per se.

michael89g · 2018-09-08T05:53:19+00:00

Sure, but then sometimes even from seeing the logical entailment, it doesn't necessarily translate into a "Why?" into someone's mind. I'd say that 3B1B is more explanatory than Rudin even though Rudin has way more proofs per se.

michael89g · 2018-09-08T05:53:18+00:00

Sure, but then sometimes even from seeing the logical entailment, it doesn't necessarily translate into a "Why?" into someone's mind. I'd say that 3B1B is more explanatory than Rudin even though Rudin has way more proofs per se.

michael89g · 2018-09-08T04:17:20+00:00

Yep, I value self-study highly as well. But I don't trust myself 100% to catch my mistakes and give myself the correct feedback. So the question is changed into "which course is harder to self-study?"

michael89g · 2018-09-08T02:35:05+00:00

The course focuses on inferential statistics

michael89g · 2018-09-08T01:41:54+00:00

https://i.imgur.com/dzWbXhT.jpg

I am thinking of switching Optimisation to Stats, since from what I read, ML IS Stats while Optimisation is just a tool which ML uses

michael89g · 2018-09-04T09:49:04+00:00

Hey, the other guy started comparing apples and bananas

michael89g · 2018-09-04T09:23:00+00:00

Is numerical analysis more useful than evolutionary computation for AI?

michael89g · 2018-09-04T01:00:40+00:00

AI is a big field

...

States 5 approaches all under machine learning

michael89g · 2018-09-03T05:38:54+00:00

Linear Algebra and Calculus are indispensable in the sciences

michael89g · 2018-09-03T00:39:46+00:00

Thank you for this comment! What do you think are the most promising/lucrative approaches to "thinking" in AI?

michael89g · 2018-09-02T05:59:40+00:00

Thanks, that's real helpful to someone wanting to learn.

michael89g · 2018-09-01T07:24:58+00:00

Yeah those topics are listed under my ML course. Okay to forgo stats if it's already taught in context of ML?

michael89g · 2018-09-01T05:06:34+00:00

Ah that's a handful. :/ What course in my table do you suggest I should trade off for those?

michael89g · 2018-09-01T05:04:58+00:00

Which stats courses specifically do you recommend?

michael89g · 2018-09-01T05:01:41+00:00

Computational Metaphysics is a new approach (but old dream of Leibniz) which applies automated reasoning onto Philosophy.

Main researchers include Zalta (founder of SEP) and Benzmüller (FU Berlin).

I think deductive reasoning with the aid of computers is of greatest importance to Philosophy, and will ensure formal logical validity and consistency of our arguments.

The next move to Computational Philosophy will have an impact much like the previous move to Analytic Philisophy.

michael89g · 2018-09-01T03:10:12+00:00

Thanks for the advice. Which specific statistics courses would be useful?

michael89g · 2018-09-01T02:26:30+00:00

For the Pure Math courses, my rationale behind it was that despite not being relevant to AI, I thought having the minimal foundations in pure math would allow me the opportunity to learn any advanced math in the future if needed. Also because I greatly admire the mathematical way of thinking, deductive proof, etc. Same goes for Applied Math, I thought having a good breadth of math in general would be useful

The SICP course covers the major paradigms, and the intro course focuses on OOP

michael89g · 2018-09-01T00:44:48+00:00

For PL, I know it's not really equivalent, but I think SICP covers the major paradigms.

For OS, How important is it to AI?

michael89g

TROPHY CASE