On 5/2/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of the things that I think is *absolutely wrong* about Legg's
paper is that he only uses more history as an example of generalization. I
think that predictive power is test for intelligence (just as he states) but
that it *must* include things that the agent has never seen before. In this
sense, I think that Legg's paper is off the mark to the extent of being
nearly useless (since you can see how it's has poisoned poor Matt's
approach).
Mark,
Why do you think that a Legg-Hutter style intelligence test would
not expose an agent to things it hadn't seen before?
To have a significant level of intelligence an agent must be able
to deal with environments that are full of surprises and unknowns.
Agents that can't do this would only be able to deal with the most
basic environments, and thus would have a relatively low universal
intelligence value.
Cheers
Shane
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
