On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 07:48:10PM +0200, Shane Legg wrote: > After some months looking around for tests of intelligence for > machines what I found
Why would machines need a different test of intelligence than people or animals? Stick them into the Skinner box, make them solve mazes, make them find food and collaborate with others in task-solving, etc. The nice thing is that people build environments where machines and people can interact in a virtual environment, they only call them games for some strange reason. > was... not very much. Few people have proposed tests of intelligence > for machines, > and other than the Turing test, none of these test have been developed > or used much. > Naturally I'd like "universal intelligence", that Hutter and myself > have formulated, > to lead to a practical test that was widely used. However making the > test practical > poses a number of problems, the most significant of which, I think, is > the sensitivity > that universal intelligence has to the choice of reference universal > Turing machine. > Maybe, with more insights, this problem can be, if not solved, at > least dealt with in > a reasonably acceptable way? > Shane -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
