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
Richard,
I don't think Shane and Marcus's overview of definitions-of-intelligence
is poor quality.
I think it is just doing something different than what you think it should be
doing.
The overview is exactly that: A review of what researchers have said about
the definition of intelligence.
Also, this would involve creating a close-knit community through
conferences, journals, common terminologies/ontologies, email lists,
articles, books, fellowships, collaborations, correspondence, research
institutes, doctoral programs, and other such devices. (Popularization is
not on the
Pei Wang 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,
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Richard,
I don't think Shane and Marcus's overview of definitions-of-intelligence
is poor quality.
I'll explain why I said poor quality.
In my experience of marking student essays, there is a stereotype of the
night before deadline essay, which goes like this. If
Pei,
I have a few thoughts about your paper.
Your classification scheme for different types of intelligence
definition seems to require that the concepts of percepts, actions
and states be objectively measurable or identifiable in some way.
I see this as a problem, because the concept of a
Your job is to be diplomatic. Mine is to call a spade a spade. ;-)
Richard Loosemore
I would rephrase it like this: Your job is to make me look diplomatic ;-p
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Your job is to be diplomatic. Mine is to call a spade a spade. ;-)
Richard Loosemore
I would rephrase it like this: Your job is to make me look diplomatic ;-p
I agree: I am undiplomatic and unreasonable.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The
Richard,
Thanks for the detailed comments!
If you spend some time in my semantic theory, you will see that I
never believe any concept can get any kind of objective meaning or
true definition. All meanings depend on an observer, with its
observation ability and limitation. The so called
I heavily agree with you, Richard. But perhaps the Hutter exercise has some
value - simply by way of making us question the validity of any mathematical
approach to intelligence.
Well, there IS some value, (although BTW, at a glance they don't seem to
recognize that IQ is not even a direct
On Jan 14, 2008 10:10 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any fool can mathematize a definition of a commonsense idea without
actually saying anything new.
Ouch. Careful. :) That may be true, but it takes $10M worth of
computer hardware to disprove.
disclaimer: that was humor
Will,
The situation you mentioned is possible, but I'd assume, given the
similar functions from percepts to states, there must also be similar
functions from states to actions, that is,
AC = GC(SC), AH = GH(SH), GC ≈ GH
Consequently, it becomes a special case of my Principle-AI, with a
Something I noticed while trying to fit my definition of AI into the
categories given.
There is another way that definitions can be principled.
This similarity would not be on the function of percepts to action.
Instead it would require a similarity on the function of percepts to
internal state
On 14/01/2008, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will,
The situation you mentioned is possible, but I'd assume, given the
similar functions from percepts to states, there must also be similar
functions from states to actions, that is,
AC = GC(SC), AH = GH(SH), GC ≈ GH
Pei,
Sorry I
2008/1/14 William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I would define the similarity of the
functions that it is possible to be interested in as.
St = F(S(t-1),P)
That is the current state is important to what change is made to the
state. For example a man coming across the percept Oui, bien sieur,
15 matches
Mail list logo
