On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:25 AM, martin biehl via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > > What is wrong with the Legg and Hutter definition of intelligence? I think > that is it.
For proving theorems, there is nothing wrong with it. For example, we can prove that a general solution is not computable. We can prove that good solutions must have high algorithmic complexity. It puts to rest the "neat" vs. "scruffy" debate. AGI is not like physics. It's long, hard, slow, expensive work, not an equation. For practical purposes, "intelligence" is not really the problem we want to solve. The problem we want to solve is automating human labor. It requires solving hard problems like vision, natural language, robotics, art, and modeling human behavior. We want machines to understand what we want and do it, not to outsmart us. -- -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ------------------------------------------- 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
