On Jan 12, 2008 3:04 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Every time a dispute erupts about what the real definition of > "intelligence" is, all we really get is noise, because nobody is clear > about the role that the definition is supposed to play.
Richard, I fully understand how annoying this kind of debate is, but given the fact that my AGI-08 paper (http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.AI_Definitions.pdf) happen to be right on this topic, I have to object to your above strong conclusion, by saying that at least I have tried to be "clear about the role that the definition is supposed to play". ;-) I know your target is probably not me (I never believe there is a "real definition" as Shane), but to completely dismiss this kind of discussion is not a good idea, as I argued in the paper. I won't repeat the content of that paper any further, and will welcome detailed criticism of it, either before or at AGI-08. Pei > If the role is to distinguish Narrow AI from AGI, Ben's definition is > fine. If the role is to define a class of (arbitrary) systems, any > definition whatsoever is fine so long as there is no circularity in it > (although the result will not necessarly have any relationship to the > commonsense meaning of "intelligence"). If the role is to act as a > loose organizing principle for a field of inquiry, it needs to have some > power to act as an organizing principle. > > With this in mind, Shane Legg's paper is not "the canonical reference", > it is a trivial reference, being nothing more than a naive list of > definitions collected from elsewhere, with only the shallowest > understanding of their context, relationships or roles. > > > > Richard Loosemore > > "At the University every great treatise is postponed until its author > attains impartial judgment and perfect knowledge. If a horse could wait > as long for its shoes and would pay for them in advance, our blacksmiths > would all be college dons." > - George Bernard Shaw: Maxims for Revolutionists (Man and Superman) > > > > > > > > Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > 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/?&; > > > > > > ----- > 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/?&; > ----- 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=85303452-97c25c
