Correct me if I misunderstood you, but essentially you are saying that the achievement of this paper is a step up in the hierarchy of the concepts of learning. This step has been made before in theory. Now, it seems not very surprising to me that a computer is able to build a model of the behavior of an abstract agent in gridworld and I just would just like to know why this has not been done before. In hindsight I regret my first comment as it should have been rather this question. Or maybe in general: As I'm not an expert and not smart, what could I learn from this paper?
> I have a theory that moving in the problem hierarchy of the world is the key to what we call intelligence. Smarter people can jump up and down the hierarchy without major issues, and less gifted people often get stuck at some level and can't see beyond the hill. They may not even recognize that there is a hill. And if they recognize the hill they can be uninterested in looking past is as it would require to much work.
This is very interesting because I've heard this argument before and I honestly don't understand how this hierarchy is not arbitrary. I would claim you find this hierarchy only after a problem is solved.
Edit: To me this argument seems like a sophisticated way of telling someone that he/she is stupid.
I don't believe i was trying to summarize the paper from an objective standpoint. I guess i was trying to summarize how my interpretation did not lead to the same conclusion that you came to.
There are many hierarchy's some model the world better than others.
"To me this argument seems like a sophisticated way of telling someone that he/she is stupid."
Ok, what argument? Did you interpret my personal theory as an argument for something? I did not mean that it applies to you. I was expressing an idea that i thought was related to what we where talking to. Sorry.
> I was expressing an idea that i thought was related to what we where talking to. Sorry.
Now I'm confused. How is your theory related to the article? And I would really love to discuss your theory itself as I already heard similar things before from somebody else in a discussion.
> I have a theory that moving in the problem hierarchy of the world is the key to what we call intelligence. Smarter people can jump up and down the hierarchy without major issues, and less gifted people often get stuck at some level and can't see beyond the hill. They may not even recognize that there is a hill. And if they recognize the hill they can be uninterested in looking past is as it would require to much work.
This is very interesting because I've heard this argument before and I honestly don't understand how this hierarchy is not arbitrary. I would claim you find this hierarchy only after a problem is solved.
Edit: To me this argument seems like a sophisticated way of telling someone that he/she is stupid.