Course talk:CPSC522/AGI

This was very well written which made an already intriguing topic even more exciting. My only concerns are: 1) there are some grammatical mistakes; 2) The treatment of some of the approaches and projects is very informal - perhaps give a taste of the specific implementation or formal theory behind some of the ideas in one or two of the examples?

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree" please rate and comment on the following:

• The topic is relevant for the course.
• The writing is clear and the English is good. 3
• The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 3
• The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5
• The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
• There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 5
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 5
• It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 5
• It is correct. 5
• It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 5
• It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5
• It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5
• The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5
• I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 5
• This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 4

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 19

Comments

1. The overall content coverage is good and provides a general introduction to the idea of AGI. However, improvements in the flow and organization of content would make the article read better, as it is a little difficult to follow certain paragraphs containing disjoint sentences. For example:
   1. In the "History of AI vs AGI" section, the first sentence mentions Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, immediately followed by a second sentence about modern study of AI in 1950s. The reader does not know what these mathematicians said about thinking machines, or what distinguishes "modern AI" from the "traditional AI". This distinction should be made clear before going straight into modern study of AI. Perhaps some paraphrasing and re-ordering of sentences are needed.
2. Some of the specific references or examples mentioned should be elaborated (or at least provided with a link), as the reader does not know what those references are by their names. Also, references/bibliography should be added. For example:
   1. What do you mean by a "general problem solver" and "fifth generation computer system"?
   2. What is "Hutter's Universal Artificial Intelligence"?
   3. What does "Solomonoff's theory" say?
   4. What are "AIXI", "AIXItl" models?
3. Some proof-reading is needed to correct English errors (incomplete sentences, grammar and typographical errors)

Scheme

• The topic is relevant for the course. 5
• The writing is clear and the English is good. 2
• The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 5
• The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 2
• The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 4
• There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 3
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 1
• It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 4
• It is correct. 5
• It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 4
• It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5
• It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 1
• The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 1
• I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 3
• This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 3
• If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 14

If I were to mark right now: On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree" please rate and comment on the following:

The topic is relevant for the course. 5

The writing is clear and the English is good. 3.5

The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 4.5

The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. N/A

The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5

There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 3 (examples, but didn't help very much)

There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. N/A

It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 4

It is correct. 5

It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 4 (could have been longer)

It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5

It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 4 (could have had more links)

The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 4 (as above)

I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 3

This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 3

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 16

Suggestions:

• spelling & grammar check
• use appropriate links to concepts that are not general knowledge
• use proper math font for variables