Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
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
No.
I spent a good deal of effort, yesterday, trying to get you to "define
intelligence in an abstract way that is not closely coupled to human
intelligence" and yet, in the end, the only thing you could produce was
a definition that either:
a) Contained a term that had to be interpreted by an intelligence - so
this was not an objective definition, it was circular,
or
b) Was a definition of such broad scope that it did not even slightly
coincide with the commonsense usage of the word "intelligent" ... for
example, it allowed an algorithm that optimized ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to
be have the word 'intelligent' attached to it,
or
c) Was couched in terms of a pure mathematical formalism (Hutter's),
about which I cannot even *say* whether it coincides with the
commonsense usage of the word "intelligent" because there is simply no
basis for comparing this definition with anything in the real world --
as meaningless as defining a unicorn in terms of measure theory!
In all other areas of science, a formal scientific definition often does
extend the original (commonsense) meaning of a term - you cite the
example of gravity, which originally only meant something that happened
on the Earth. But one thing that a formal scientific definition NEVER
does is to make a mockery of the original commonsense definition.
I am eagerly awaiting any definition from you that does not fall into
one of these traps. Instead, it seems to me, you give only assertions
that such a definition exists, without actualy showing it.
*********
Unless you or someone else comes up with a definition that does not fall
into one of these traps, I am not going to waste any more time arguing
the point.
Consider that, folks, to be a challenge: to those who think there is
such a definition, I await your reply.
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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
