Mike T, A fairly decent purely computational AGI test (suggested by Sam Adams from IBM) would be the Video Game Test
--- Learn to play a series of randomly chosen human videogames, based only on interaction with the games themselves, and the goal of maximizing score (or whatever the goal of each game is) Of course, this only works if the AGI designer has looked at, say, 1% or fewer of existing videogames when building his system. It doesn't work if the AGI designer has hired 1000000 programmers to write game-playing AIs separately for each game, and then wired them together This is not a perfect test, but success on it would be rather compelling... We briefly discussed this along with the Woz coffee test and others in our article on AGI in the recent issue of AI Magazine... ... ben g On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > ** > Sergio, > > The Woz test as I indicated to Bob is indeed extremely complicated. I used > it only because it's already out there - and is therefore helpful as a > *loose* guide/image. > > The other isn't really Ben's - it's the basic fetch test a dog faces - he > must (and will) fetch a ball thrown by his master in more or less any field > - > > this basically means he must (and will) negotiate more or less any > unfamiliar terrain (within loose limits) - > > he can create and negotiate a course across terrains of grassy clumps, > rocky ground, sandy beach, furniture and furnishings in a building et al - > all of which will spring surprises > > also, of course, the ball could end up hidden from view in different ways > and situations > > there's no way the dog could be specifically preprogrammed for every new > terrain and hidden ball...(nor, by extension, is there any complex > "set" that can infer the features of every new terrain) > > if your robot can simply negotiate new .terrain after new terrain somewhat > like a dog (or all other life forms) and not even fetch a ball - it's AGI > > If we were talking a relatively simple practical starting-point, I would > suggest aiming for a robot that could negotiate just a few metres of > endlessly diverse terrains (wh. is more or less what roboticists are > attempting now, although I'll bet they all still cheat).. > > P.S. I don't think a purely computational AGI project is possible. Once > you think in depth about the goals of generalizability and creativity, you > will realise they depend on being implemented by a body with an extensive > range/spectrum of different lines of movement and observation. The body is > the foundation of generality and creativity - it affords the capacity to > always try out new lines of movement and looking, and handle objects and > negotiate terrains in new ways. > > By all means try to outline a project that contradicts me. It will be > interesting regardless. > > > > *From:* Sergio Pissanetzky <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, June 09, 2012 7:27 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [agi] The 2 Tests of AGI - generalizability & creativity > > Mike, **** > > ** ** > > I like the concept of the Woz test. However, the test itself has three > problems. It is unfair to those who do not build robots, and it requires > the ability to recognize images, which is in itself a major test. The third > problem, it requires considerable computer power, besides generalizability > and creativity. It would be unfair to those who may have a good idea but > lack the necessary power, such as me. Do you think it can be rephrased so > as to eliminate these limitations?**** > > ** ** > > Can you please explain what is Ben's fetch test?**** > > ** ** > > Sergio**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Mike Tintner [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Saturday, June 09, 2012 5:37 AM > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* [agi] Re: The 2 Tests of AGI - generalizability & creativity*** > * > > ** ** > > P.S. The Woz Test {"go and make a cup of coffee in this new kitchen") is > a test of creativity - of being able to design a course of action without > specific programming.**** > > **** > > But (correct me) it isn't defined as a test of creativity - and should be. > **** > > **** > > Note: there is a great deal of underlying unanimity here - in the Woz > Test, Ben's fetch test and similar - but the basic principles involved > (generalizability and creativity) haven't been clearly spelled out.**** > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57>| > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > **** > > <http://www.listbox.com>**** > > ** ** > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
