:-) One neat little idea that I've picked up (from a business course of all things) is that all human beings are driven by two of the same four top-level goals (ordered differently for each): 1.. being safe 2.. feeling good 3.. being right 4.. looking good (though, personally, being a "being safe/feeling good", I'd argue that the latter two are just sub-goals of the former two but I digress . . . . :-)
Would anyone here care to argue that they are *NOT* fundamentally *ALWAYS* driven by these goals? And, if so, what goal(s) are you driven by? Most other high (but not top) level goals are generally meta/sub-goals that facilitate the obtaining/reaching of the four basic goals. These include money, education/knowledge, etc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Loosemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:31 AM Subject: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence > Benjamin Goertzel wrote: >> >> Well, in my 1993 book "The Structure of Intelligence" I defined >> intelligence as >> >> "The ability to achieve complex goals in complex environments." >> >> I followed this up with a mathematical definition of complexity grounded in >> algorithmic information theory (roughly: the complexity of X is the >> amount of >> pattern immanent in X or emergent between X and other Y's in its >> environment). >> >> This was closely related to what Hutter and Legg did last year, in a >> more rigorous >> paper that gave an algorithmic information theory based definition of >> intelligence. >> >> Having put some time into this sort of definitional work, I then moved >> on to more >> interesting things like figuring out how to actually make an intelligent >> software system >> given feasible computational resources. >> >> The catch with the above definition is that a truly general intelligence >> is possible >> only w/ infinitely many computational resources. So, different AGIs may >> be able >> to achieve different sorts of complex goals in different sorts of >> complex environments. >> And if an AGI is sufficiently different from us humans, we may not even >> be able >> to comprehend the complexity of the goals or environments that are most >> relevant >> to it. >> >> So, there is a general theory of what AGI is, it's just not very useful. >> >> To make it pragmatic one has to specify some particular classes of goals and >> environments. For example >> >> goal = getting good grades >> environment = online universities >> >> Then, to connect this kind of pragmatic definition with the mathematical >> definition, one would have the prove the complexity of the goal (getting >> good >> grades) and the environment (online universities) based on some relevant >> computational model. But the latter seems very tedious and boring work... >> >> And IMO, all this does not move us very far toward AGI, though it may help >> avoid some conceptual pitfalls that could have been fallen into >> otherwise... > > > Unfortunately, I do not think any of the existing definitions of > intelligence (include yours above, and those offered by Hutter, Legg, > etc) are worth anything, for the following reason: > > Take a look at the word 'goal'. The only way that this term can be > defined is subjectively: you have to use ANOTHER intelligence to > interpret what counts as a goal or not. > > For example, in your above example you wrote "goal = getting good > grades" .... but it is impossible to come up with any kind of objective > formalization of this. It would take an entire intelligence just to say > what counts as the meaning of "getting good grades". > > So you need to say "The definition of intelligence is [some definition > using the term "goal"], and the definition of "goal" is "Whatever an > intelligent system would subjectively classify as a 'goal'". > > But if you cannot define intelligence without inserting a subjective > term in the definition, why bother with the circumlocution: why not cut > to the chase and just define it this way: > > "The definition of intelligence is "Whatever an intelligent system would > subjectively classify as 'intelligence'". > > In exactly the same way, if you look at the standard approach to AI > (Russell and Norvig, e.g.) you will find it triumphantly declaring that > we now treat AI in a more objective, scientific and rigorous way because > we define the AI endeavor in terms of "agents", "goals" etc. But when > you dissect the meanings of terms like "agents" and "goals" you find the > same surrepticious dependence on subjective terms. Pure nonsense. Sham > science. > > > > Richard Loosemore. > > > > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
