--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt, > > Your measure of intelligence seems to be based on not much > more than storage capacity, processing power, I/O, and > accumulated knowledge. This has the advantage of being > easily formalizable, but has the disadvantage of missing a > necessary aspect of intelligence.
Usually when I say "intelligence" I mean "amount of knowledge", which can be measured in bits. (Well not really, since Kolmogorov complexity is not computable). The other measures reduce to it. Increasing memory allows more knowledge to be stored. Increasing processing power and I/O bandwidth allows faster learning, or more knowledge accumulation over the same time period. Actually, amount of knowledge is just an upper bound. A random string has high algorithmic complexity but is not intelligent in any meaningful sense. My justification for this measure is based on the AIXI model. In order for an agent to guess an environment with algorithmic complexity K, the agent must be able to simulate the environment, so it must also have algorithmic complexity K. An agent with higher complexity can guess a superset of environments that a lower complexity agent could, and therefore cannot do worse in accumulated reward. > I have yet to see from you any acknowledgment that > cognitive architecture is at all important to realized > intelligence. Even your global brain requires an explanation > of how cognition actually happens at each of the nodes, be > they humans or AI. Cognitive architecture is not relevant to Legg and Hutter's universal intelligence (expected reward in random AIXI environments). It is only important for specific subsets of possible goals, like the ones that are important to us. If you define intelligence by the Turing test, then obviously the cognitive architecture should model a human brain. In my global brain model, nodes trade messages when the receivers can compress them smaller than the senders, achieving distributed data compression. In general, compression is not computable regardless of architecture. In practice the messages are natural language text, so the architecture is important. It will probably be a neural language model. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
