There is an equivalent to "throwing away data" in the Hutter Prize, and that is the portion of the compressed representation that can be considered "noise" rather than the knowledge model. The difference with natural intelligence here is that in natural intelligence there are biases as to which data can be thrown away that are imposed by the natural algorithms themselves. These biases are related to the evolutionary fitness of including or not including the data in the analysis. In the case of the Hutter Prize, the determination of the equivalent of "evolutionary fitness" of the data is made at the time the prize is defined as being in terms of a given sample of Wikipedia. Beyond that, everything operates essentially the same as in a natural system that must accurately predict evolutionary relevant phenomena.

The resource limitation on the Hutter Prize is analogous to resource limitations in other contests that have objective measurements of success. The question isn't how "smart" you can be give infinite resources, but rather how efficiently smart you can be. That is a test of the algorithm and provides some idea of how "smart" it will be if scaled up.

This makes it more economical to run the contest and includes a greater range of participants as contestants.

Human intelligence is clearly a particular kind of intelligence but when I said "general intelligence" was referring to something more general that is sometimes called "universal artificial intelligence".

If the goal is to pass the Turing Test, that is one thing. But clearly they are trying for something more general in some of their contests. I'm just informing them (assuming they are watching) that better tests are available.

The claim that "winning both industrial and academic data competitions with minimal effort" might be more impressive if it included the only provably rigorous test of general intelligence:

The Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge

The last time anyone improved on that benchmark was 2009.

I've had "Talking Nets: An Oral History of Neural Networks" for several weeks on interlibrary loan. It interviews 17 "fathers of neural nets" (including Hinton) and it isn't even a complete set of said "fathers".

Look, this stuff goes back a long ways and has had some hiccups along the way, like the twenty year period it was treated with little more respect by the scientific establishment than has cold fusion for the last twenty years. There are plenty of heroics to go around.

I can recommend the book highly.

By advocating your "meritocracy" at the Federal level, you are imposing on the environment of other human subjects experimental treatments of their ecologies to which they did not consent.

You are, of course, free to test your causal hypothesis in human ecology (opening borders causes prosperity and happiness or whatever it is you value). Critically, however, to do so without allowing those who do not consent to your experimental treatment their own territory with perfect border continence -- the kind that can be achieved with appropriate defense investments (not the kind we see being made by the US overseas), is inhuman. As an inhuman being they may ethically treat you as a force of nature.

The most parsimonious explanation for a wide range of phenomena, including the very significant phenomenon of massive immigration following on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 to replace the population lost with the destruction of the middle class along with its total fertility rate during the ensuing generation, is a breeding program getting rid of individualism in favor of eusocial workers. Individualist tendencies are hard to manage.

Since Musk has joined forces with Zuckerberg to promote open borders, its obvious that he also sees the solution to Southern California's I405 traffic problem as more immigrant road workers!

Anyone who lived in Southern California for the 2 decades following the Reagan Amnesty can attest to the fact that more immigration is good for the environment generally. That's why the Sierra Club banned all debate about immigration after receiving hundred million dollars or so from a donor who told them to STFU about immigration and the environment.

At the Federal level the only humane plank is Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them.

Everything else is in the noise.

Slashdot has become People Magazine.

Wasting chloraphylies is a capital offense, punishable by death.

Let's see, just prior to their demographic collapse, creating a population vacuum now being filled by invading populations from around the world, people of European descent were being labeled as"whites" and "racist" and "xenophobic" and "prejudiced" and "discriminatory" and "imperialistic" and "genocidal" and "supremacist", there being "no place for" them if they wanted to be left alone as that would be "segregationists".

Yep, clearly hate speech causes genocide.

One can see from the spin put on recent stories that Slashdot itself has been compromised.

funny luking frenurz wont Ur jubzz!! ur jubbzzz!! deay wunturjubzz!!

(You will notice how I am not only a xenophobic racist in the above exclamation, but I am inarticulate if not down right illiterate. This merely goes to show that people of my race/gender/age (white/male/old) not only must, as an urgent economic necessity, be displaced by importing hundreds of thousands if not millions from abroad, but that we deserve to be displaced.)