On 14/01/2008, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 13, 2008 7:40 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > And, as I indicated, my particular beef was with Shane Legg's paper, > > which I found singularly content-free. > > Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter have a recent publication on this topic, > http://www.springerlink.com/content/jm81548387248180/ > which is much richer in content. >
I think this can also be found here http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329 For those of us without springerlink accounts. "While we do not consider efficiency to be a part of the definition of intelligence, this is not to say that considering the efficiency of agents is unimportant. Indeed, a key goal of artificial intelligence is to find algorithms which have the greatest efficiency of intelligence, that is, which achieve the most intelligence per unit of computational resources consumed." Why not consider resource efficiciency a thing to be adapted? Over which "problems" can be solved. An example. consider 2 android robots with finite energy supplies tasked with a long foot race. One shuts down all processing non-essential to its current task of running (sound familiar to what humans do? I certainly think better walking), so it uses less energy. The other one attempts to find programs that precisly predict its input given its output, churning through billions of possibilities and consuming vast amounts of energy. The one that shuts down its processing finishes the race and gets reward, the other one runs its battery down by processing too much and has to be rescued, getting no reward. As they have defined it only outputting can make the system more or less likely to achieve a goal. Which is a narrow view. Will Pearson ----- 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=85547641-0ef2b3
