On 3/8/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let me put it this way: would AIXI, in building an implementation of this function, have to make use of a universe (or universe simulation) that *implicitly* included intelligences that were capable of creating the IQ tests? So, if there were a question like this in the IQ tests: "Anna Nicole is to Monica Lewinsky as Madonna is to ......" Would AIXI have to build a solution by implicitly deconstructing (if you see what I mean) the entire real universe, including its real human societies and real (intelligent) human beings and real social relationships? If AIXI does a post-hoc deconstruction of some "real" intelligent systems as part of building its own "intelligent" function, it is parasitic on that intelligence. You can confirm that it is not parasitic in that way?
If I understand you correctly, you ask two different questions here. (Context: I'm assuming "IQ test" means a folder of IQ tests you might actually buy from a real company today, not some hypothetical function of arbitrary complexity.) The first question is, consider the shortest program that would max out the test. Does it consist of: A) Start with the Big Bang, run 14 billion years, pick the Everett branch that evolved English-speaking humans, send a UFO to abduct the smartest human and present him with the test... (okay I'm being a little facetious but you get the idea), B) Some special-purpose hack that treats "Anna Nicole" etc as arbitrary symbols without any of the connotations they have to us, _and does not generalize to anything much other than IQ tests_. Obviously it's unprovable, but I'm confident the answer is B based on experience: the shortest program for any _particular_ task is almost always a special-purpose hack that doesn't generalize. And in case B, everyone would agree there is no great intelligence involved. You then seem to be saying that even in case A, the intelligence would reside in the genius evolved in the simulated universe, and the apparent intelligence of AIXI would be "parasitical" on that, i.e. AIXI itself wouldn't "really" be intelligent. As I said recently, I agree with that position, but it's also one of philosophy, of how one chooses to define the word "intelligence", not something amenable to proof or disproof; to call AIXI intelligent in that scenario would effectively be a form of pantheism. ----- 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/?list_id=11983
