For example, the statement that "An AI is an agent that tries to satisfy a set of goals" (or some such wording) seems to make the AI endeavor look like it starts from a clear conceptual beginning that DOES NOT REFER to any attempt to copy human intelligence. This is why the agent-talk definition is required. It is a political tool, of you will.
No. It is possible to define intelligence in an abstract way that is not closely coupled to human intelligence. Even though obviously this definition uses concepts created by humans based partly on introspection. (Similarly, we can create a definition of gravity in a way that is not closely coupled to the Earth in particular, even though our language for discussing gravity was created based on our experiences on Earth.) Hutter, Legg and I have done this already. Others have too. But, pragmatically, if someone created an AI that had nothing to do with human intelligence, we wouldn't necessarily even be able to recognize that it was intelligent! I am explicitly trying to copy many of humans' intelligent behaviors, and many aspects of human cognitive architecture and dynamics ... even though I am not in toto trying to build an artificial human... -- Ben G ----- 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
