> This is cognition at its weirdest: solving problems somewhat by accident, finding answers in the wrong place, connecting dots that aren’t even in the same picture.
If you solve a problem "by accident", there are very many other people who make foolish decisions daily because they do not think. Some of those pan out too and lead to understanding. A resource-bounded agent can also maintain a notion of fuel and give a random answer when it has exhausted its fuel.
The structural incompleteness mentioned isn't really meaningful. Humans have not demonstrated the capacity to make epsilon-optimal decisions on an infinite number of tasks, since we do not do an infinite number of tasks anyway.
K-complexity, and resource-bounded K-complexity are indeed extremely useful tools to talk about generalization, I'd agree, but I think the author has misunderstood the limits that K-complexity places on generalization.
If you solve a problem "by accident", there are very many other people who make foolish decisions daily because they do not think. Some of those pan out too and lead to understanding. A resource-bounded agent can also maintain a notion of fuel and give a random answer when it has exhausted its fuel.
The structural incompleteness mentioned isn't really meaningful. Humans have not demonstrated the capacity to make epsilon-optimal decisions on an infinite number of tasks, since we do not do an infinite number of tasks anyway.
K-complexity, and resource-bounded K-complexity are indeed extremely useful tools to talk about generalization, I'd agree, but I think the author has misunderstood the limits that K-complexity places on generalization.