What is wrong with the Legg and Hutter definition of intelligence? I think that is it.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Telmo Menezes via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Piaget Modeler via AGI <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Classification:* given a set of inputs return a distinct output that >> compresses the information of the input into a smaller set of values. * >> >> Classification tasks can be done with neural networks, fuzzy logic, case >> based reasoning, specialized compression, etc. >> >> Construction: *given an initial state, a set of operations, and a goal >> state, return a sequence of operations that transforms the initial state >> into the goal state.* >> > > Right, I have no problem with the definitions of Classification and > Construction. My problem is with the definitions of Intelligence, AI, and > AGI. Can you define that? We need those definitions to be able to judge if > Classification and Construction are necessary and sufficient for AGI. > > >> >> Construction tasks can be done with planning algorithms (state space >> search, plan space search, hierarchical search, etc.). >> > >> >> Both approaches *ARE *used in complex AI applications. >> > > Yes, and if you look at what we know about how the human brain works, you > can easily argue that the brain does Classification and Construction. What > we don't know is if this will turn out to be a useful distinction. For > example, I can conceive of an ANN being trained to do classification and > construction at the same time, and without any well defined borders (as I > suspect happens in the brain). > > Or you could argue that Construction is all that's happening and that > classification is just a detail to help construction (along with learning, > random exploration, whatever). > > Or... > > My point is, this is just a model. Models aren't really right/wrong as > much as they are useful or not. > > Telmo. > > >> >> ~PM >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:03:40 +0100 >> Subject: Re: [agi] Couple thoughts >> >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Piaget Modeler via AGI <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I was taught that in AI there are two primary tasks, Classification and >> Construction. >> >> Please correct me where I'm wrong, anyone. I like to learn. >> >> >> There has always been a lot of debate about what AI is. We don't even >> have anything close to a consensus on a good definition of "intelligence". >> This leads me to suspect that the main problem with AI is that we don't >> have a well-defined problem to tackle, but that's a broader issue. >> >> Sure "Classification and Construction" is not so bad. It's not a matter >> of being right or wrong. There are thousands of plausible alternatives to >> this. You pick a model and run with it, but let's not pretend we are >> dealing with some super-objective definition. >> >> >> >> Deep Learning and (many other methods) are good at classification tasks. >> >> We also need methods good at construction tasks (i.e. plan generation). >> >> >> This "also need" mentality could be the problem. Maybe what we need is >> something that can holistically perform both types of tasks. >> >> Suppose you take deep blue. It can play chess really well, a skill that >> was up to then associated with humans. But then someone says: wait humans >> are also usually good at driving cars. Then you merge Google cars and deep >> blue and claim to be closer to AGI? Does this make any sense? Do you see >> the problem? >> >> Best, >> Telmo. >> >> >> >> ~PM >> >> > Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:09:00 -0800 >> > Subject: [agi] Couple thoughts >> > From: [email protected] >> > To: [email protected] >> > >> > I had a couple of things running through my mind -- >> > >> > 1) "Deep learning algorithms are very good at one thing today: >> > learning input and mapping it to an output. X to Y. Learning concepts >> > is going to be hard." Andrew Ng. >> > >> > I guess I take that to be an acid test of where the big guys are with >> concepts. >> > >> > 2) "brain inspired", "physics inspired", "math inspired," X-inspired, >> > etc-inspired, hybird-inspired... >> > >> > It seems all AGI approaches take the "inspired by" approach. The only >> > approach that is not deliberately inspired by some discipline, but >> > aspires to the actual thing: Colin Hayes' approach. >> > >> > There is nothing wrong with the "inspired by" approach, of course. >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------- >> > AGI >> > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> > RSS Feed: >> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc >> > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/25129130-ee4f7d55> | >> 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/303/19999924-4a978ccc> | >> 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/303/25129130-ee4f7d55> | >> 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/303/10872673-8f99760d> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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
