Marcus Hutter

But most curiosity, well, in humans and especially in children, is not just for its own sake, but for actually learning about the environment and for behaving better.

So I think most curiosity is tied in the end to what's performing better.

Well, okay.

Okay, to the first question, the biological reward function is to survive and to spread, and very few humans are able to overcome this biological reward function.

But we live in a very nice world where we have lots of spare time and can still survive and spread, so we can develop

arbitrary other interests, which is quite interesting.

On top of that.

On top of that, yeah.

But the survival and spreading sort of is, I would say, the goal or the reward function of humans, the core one.

My own meaning of life and reward function is to find an AGI to build it.

Yeah, that is one of the criticisms about ICSI, that it ignores computational completely.

And some people believe that intelligence is inherently tied to what's bounded resources.

I would say that an intelligence notion which ignores computational limits is extremely useful.

A good intelligent notion which includes these resources would be even more useful, but we don't have that yet.

And so look at other fields outside of computer science.

computational aspects never play a fundamental role.

You develop biological models for cells, something in physics, these theories, I mean, become more and more crazy and harder and harder to compute.

Well, in the end, of course, we need to do something with this model, but this is more a nuisance than a feature.

And I'm sometimes wondering if artificial intelligence would not sit in a computer science department, but in a philosophy department,

then this computational focus would be probably significantly less.