- - >I agree that existing tests for human child intelligence are basically fine for AGIs being built and taught via a human-development-related path...
Yes, I'm talking about developmental psychology, language acquisition etc., it's not a dumb a/b/c test taking... >However, I think such tests are useful as qualitative guides for folks working on AGI. Â I think if you start interpreting them as rigorous >progress metrics, somebody is going to be able to hack a system to pass those early childhood tests without any capability of extending further >on to adult intelligence.... I'm talking about SIGI (Self-improving ...), it's a sensori-motor AGI that lives and interact with environment, teachers and other agents (any other, as general as a corresponding human child would be capable to, at least), it's not a test-taking hack. Such a SIGI doesn't have another way to learn than from raw sensory data (initially), after some time it can learn and acquire quickly data with more abstract forms of sensing and directly connect to high levels, but it must have all initial sensory interfaces required to do human-like activities which a human would do and could do if enter in its virtual world, or if the machine is fed with data from the real world and interact with the real world. In order to be qualified as "3 year-old" the same system must be capable to pass the requirements for all lower ages (kindergarten textbooks programs are divided in weeks, and each week has different subjects, for earlier ages one can pretend being a mother/parent). The SIGI must start from a position similar to a human (with some relaxations possible), e.g. at 0 years old it shouldn't be capable to speak sentences, write, count from 1 to 20 etc. .... Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov .... .... Twenkid Research: http://research.twenkid.com .... Self-Improving General Intelligence Conference: http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2012/07/news-sigi-2012-1-first-sigi-agi.html .... Todor Arnaudov's Researches Blog: http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com - *From:* Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> - *To:* [email protected] - *Subject:* Re: [agi] Re: A test for less narrow artificial intelligence - *Date:* Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:44:30 -0500 I agree that existing tests for human child intelligence are basically fine for AGIs being built and taught via a human-development-related path... However, I think such tests are useful as qualitative guides for folks working on AGI. Â I think if you start interpreting them as rigorous progress metrics, somebody is going to be able to hack a system to pass those early childhood tests without any capability of extending further on to adult intelligence.... Â -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
