Mike, 1) It seems to assume that intelligence is based on a rational,
deterministic program - is that right? Adaptive intelligence, I would argue, definitely isn't. There isn't a rational, right way to approach the problems adaptive intelligence has to deal with.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The agent that we measure the intelligence of does not have to be deterministic, nor does the environment. Indeed, the agent doesn't even have to have a computable probability distribution, it could work by magic for all we care. 2) It assumes that intelligent agents maximise their rewards. Wrong. You
don't except in extreme situations try to maximise your rewards when you invest on the stockmarket - or invest in any other action. In the real world, you have to decide how to invest your time, energy and resources in taking/solving problematic decisions/problems (like how to invest on the stockmarket). Those decisions carry rewards, risks and uncertainty. The higher the rewards, the higher the risks (nor just of failure but of all kinds of danger). The lower the rewards, the lower the risks (and the greater the security).
Let's say that you want to invest money in a low risk way that still has some minimal level of return. In other words, you don't want to simply maximise your expected return, rather you want to maximise some balance of return and risk (or any other things you also want to take into account such as time and energy). Take all these factors and define a utility function over the possible outcomes. If you can't do this then you don't really know exactly what it is that you desire. Now simply consider the reward signal from the environment to the agent to be exactly the utility function that you just defined. In order to perform well in this setting the agent must work out how to balance return on investment against risks etc. Moreover, this type of environment still has a computable measure and thus is already contained in our intelligence test.
3) And finally, just to really screw up this search for intelligence definitions - any definition will be fundamentally ARBITRARY There will always be conflicting ideals of what intelligent problem solving involves..
There is no such thing as a provably true definition. However some definitions are clearer, more general and more consistent with the informal usage than others. So let me put the challenge to you: Can you name one well defined process to do with intelligent problem solving that universal intelligence doesn't already test for? Shane ----- 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=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
