Moshe Looks wrote:

> James wrote:
> > Solving the general problem of intelligence in the
> > theoretical sense doesn't really involve knowing anything about
> > wetware.
> But I would argue, in light of the above, that there is no such
> thing as the
> "general problem of intelligence", and that the intelligence or
> lack thereof
> of AGIs is benchmarked based on their performance in the human world.  To
> give one more example, I think it's clear that one aspect of
> intelligence is
> the ability recognize the existence of, and to model, other minds.  Humans
> are fairly good at modeling other humans, but probably stink at modeling
> eight-legged marsupials from Tau Ceti.  In a world with 6 billion humans,
> part of the criterion for "how smart" and AGI is will be how well
> it models
> us.


I think there *is* a "general problem of intelligence", and it's an
unsolvable problem unless one has infinite computational resources.

Suppose we conceive intelligence as "the ability to achieve complex goals in
complex environments."

With finite computational resources there are always going to be some
complex goals that one can achieve better than others....

Hutter and Schmidhuber's mathematical approach to general intelligence
basically verifies this idea, in a more formal & theoretical way...

> 1) Features or components of a system that are loosely inspired by the way
> the human brain works.
> 2) Features or components of a system that attempt to explicitly model the
> way some particular feature or component of the human brain carries out a
> particular task.  Examples of this category are the "algorithms" of human
> vision presented by David Marr.
> 3) Features or components of a system that attempt to explicitly model the
> _tasks performed_ by some feature or component of the human brain, without
> necessarily using the same methods.
> As a side-note, Novamente does lots of 1), but very little of 2) or 3).
> I would argue that all three are important in
> some aspects of AGI design, but perhaps less so in others.

Yes, this is an accurate statement as regards Novamente.

At present, I am more inclined to take approach 3 as regards perceptual and
motor tasks, which are not at all the focus of our current work in
Novamente.   But that may change when we get deeply into those aspects later
on.  As noted before, when starting out with Webmind, I was more inclined
toward approach 3, but later gravitated to approach 1 due to

-- issues of computational tractability with closely brain-modeling-based
-- a desire to make use of the special advantages a digital computer
architecture offers for some kinds of cognition

-- Ben G

To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, 
please go to

Reply via email to