What is the universal test for the ability of any given AI SYSTEM to Perceive Reason and Act?
Is there such a test? What is the closest test known to date? Dan Goe ---------------------------------------------------- >From : William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To : [email protected] Subject : Re: [agi] AGI bottlenecks Date : Fri, 2 Jun 2006 14:30:20 +0100 > On 01/06/06, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I had similar feelings about William Pearson's recent message about > > systems that use reinforcement learning: > > > > > > > > A reinforcement scenario, from wikipedia is defined as > > > > > > "Formally, the basic reinforcement learning model consists of: > > > > > > 1. a set of environment states S; > > > 2. a set of actions A; and > > > 3. a set of scalar "rewards" in the Reals. > > > " > > > > Here is my standard response to Behaviorism (which is what the above > > reinforcement learning model actually is): Who decides when the rewards > > should come, and who chooses what are the relevant "states" and "actions"? > > The rewards I don't deal with, I am interested in external brain > add-ons rather than autonomous systems, so the reward system will be > closely coupled to a human in some fashion. > > The rest of post I was trying to outline a system that could alter > what it considered actions and states (and bias, learning algorithms > etc). The RL definition was just there as an example to work against. > > > If you find out what is doing *that* work, you have found your > > intelligent system. And it will probably turn out to be so enormously > > complex, relative to the reinforcement learning part shown above, that > > the above formalism (assuming it has not been discarded by then) will be > > almost irrelevant. > > The internals of the system will be enormously more complex compared > to the reinforcement part I described. But it won't make that > irrelevent. What goes on inside a PC is vastly more complex than the > system that governs the permissions of what each *nix program can do. > This doesn't mean the permission governing system is irrelevent. > > Like the permissions system in *nix the reinforcement system it is > only supposed to govern who is allowed to do what, not what actually > happens. Unlike the permission system it is supposed to get that from > the affect of the programs on the environment. Without it both sorts > of systems would be highly unstable. > > I see it as a necessity for complete modular flexibility. If you get > one of the bits that does the work wrong, or wrong for the current > environment, how do you allow it to change? > > > Just my deux centimes' worth. > > > > Appreciated. > > > > > On a more positive note, I do think it is possible for AGI researchers > > to work together within a common formalism. My presentation at the > > AGIRI workshop was about that, and when I get the paper version of the > > talk finalized I will post it somewhere. > > > > I'll be interested, but sceptical. > > Will > > ------- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
