Course talk:CPSC522/Baseilne of RSI

Interesting topic choice. It seems clear that you intend to add a little more to your page, so I look forward to reading the finished version! There are a few spots where you might need to edit a little bit and fix some typos/grammar etc. For instance, the title of the page should definitely have the typo fixed. Overall though this is a goood start.

   The topic is relevant for the course. 5
   The writing is clear and the English is good. 3 (Some typos/grammar issues)
   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. 4
   The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
   There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. N/A (It would help to add some examples)
   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 (It's a little short, but it seems obvious you intend to add to it)
   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. N/A
   The references and links to external pages are well chosen. N/A
   I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 3 (Hard to judge yet, would need to see the finished version)
   This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 3 (Hard to judge yet because as mentioned before, it seems obvious you intend to add to it and I'd need to see the final version)

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

• The topic is relevant for the course. 5
• 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). 5
• 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. 3
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 3
• 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. 4
• I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 4
• 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: 15

Comments:
The title has a spelling error in it, Baseilne of RSI should be Basline of RSI. The link in the related pages "intelligence explosion" has an invalid character causing it to break. Many minor gramatical issues, for example "by formulate a class" should be "by formulating a class", easy fixes though. It is an interesting topic but I'm still a bit confused how it works. For example, in the experimental results, what did the programs that you improved actually do? You say you test in sumulation with randomly generated abstraction of programs, can you give an example of one of them? Also, you may want at least once source in the bibliography, or maybe remove it if it will be left blank.

Comments =

Interesting topic, but I do not think I understand it very well. I have a couple questions

You say that you prove the existence of the optimal score function, is that still a to do? You also say you formalize the definition of RSI systems, but this formulization is not used anywhere. What is the use? Does it aid you in proofs? Is there related work or is this completely novel? How do the programs you generate look like? In general, how do you define a program? What's the rank of the program? "The expected numbers of steps from a program to find the optimal program following the defined procedure is a reasonable choice to describe the program's ability of future improvement." Why is that a reasonable choice? Or rather, if you define score as the number of steps to reach optimality and future improvement potential, how is optimality defined? How do we know the steps that are needed? RSI seems very similar to evolutionary algorithm? Is there any research in that field that could apply here? Or how does they relate?

Minor Things:

There is a decent amount of grammatical errors, I cherry-picked some:

• Baseilne of RSI -> A Baseline of RSI
• Recursive self-improving systems has been dreamed since -> Recursive self-improving systems have been dreamed of since
• how dose a program -> how does a program
• thesis [8] -> should use a wikipedia citation system

Marking Scheme

I 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. 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. 3
   The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 3 
   There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 2
   There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 1
   It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 3
   It is correct. ?
   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. 3
   The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 3
   I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. ?
   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

Hi Wenyi,

The topic of your Wiki page is interesting and new to me, so I can't comment on the technical stuff, but I sure have some comments from the perspective of a newbie. Below are some comments about your article:

• In many places |I see the use of the word "we", but I see that only you have authored this page. So, if you had some help it would be better to mention, else the Wiki page should be altered in such manner that it reflects that only you have worked on this page.
• There is not much information given in this article about the RSI or the background of the problem or the technique, which could essentially help the reader gain some context. If you had the January or February assignment which was about the baseline of the RSI, it would be helpful to give its link at the beginning of the document.
• Some grammatical errors were also there, I suggest the use of Grammarly tool. This tool is great, I use it for myself as well.
• In Introduction section, in line "Chalmers' proportionality thesis [8] hypothesizes", the reference number "8" is given, but in the bibliography, there is no item.

Thanks, Ekta Aggarwal