On definitions of intelligence, the canonical reference is http://www.vetta.org/shane/intelligence.html
which lists 71 definitions. Apologies if someone already pointed out Shane's page in this thread, I didn't read every message carefully. > An AGI definition of intelligence surely has, by definition! - to be > "general" rather than "complex" and emphasize "general > problemsolving/learning". That seems to be what you actually mean. Mike: Obviously, my "achieving complex goals in complex environments" definition is intended to include "generality". It could be rephrased as "effectively achieving a wide variety of complex goals in various complex environments", with the "general" implicit in the "wide." I also gave a math version of the definition in 1993, which is totally unambiguous due to being math rather than words. I have not bothered to look at the precise relations btw my older math definition and Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter's more recent math definition of intelligence. They are not identical but have a similar spirit. > "Intelligence has many dimensions. A crucial dimension of a true > intelligence* is that it is general. It is a general problem-solver and > general learner, able to solve, and learn how to solve, problems in many, > and potentially infinite, domains - *without* being specially preprogrammed > for any one of them. All computers to date have been specialists. The goal > of Artificial General Intelligence is to create the first generalist." > The problem with your above "definition" is that it uses terms that are themselves so extremely poorly-defined ;-) Arguably it rules out the brain, which is heavily preprogrammed by evolution in order to be good at certain things like vision, arm and hand movement, social interaction, language parsing, etc. And it does not rule out AIXItl type programs which achieve flexibility trivially, at the cost of utilizing unacceptably much computational resources... The reality is that achieving general intelligence given finite resources is probably always going to involve a combination of in-built biases and general learning ability. And where the line is drawn between "in-built biases" and "preprogramming" is something that current comp/cog-sci does not allow us to formally articulate in a really useful way. This is a subtle issue, as e.g. a program for carrying out a specific task, coupled with a general- purpose learner of the right level of capability, may in effect serve as a broader inductive bias helping with a wider variety of tasks. -- Ben ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=85169576-90c0ab
