On 4/26/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can you point to an objective definition that is clear about which things are more intelligent than others, and which does not accidentally include things that manifestly conflict with the commonsense definition (by false negatives or false positives)?
(Disclaimer: I do not claim to know the sort of maths that Ben and Hutter and others have used in defining intelligence. I'm fully aware that I'm dabbling in areas that I have little education in, and might be making a complete fool of myself. Nonetheless...) In thinking about human rationality, I've found it useful to consider intelligence and goals as two separate things. Goals are what you want to do, intelligence is how you achieve them. An intelligent system is one that can be given a wide variety of goals, which it will then figure out how to achieve. Therefore, I suggest the following amendment of Ben's formulation of intelligence: The intelligence of a system is a function of the amount of different arbitrary goals (functions that the system maximizes as it changes over time) it can carry out and the degree by which it can succeed in those different goals (how much it manages to maximize the functions in question) in different environments as compared to other systems. This would eliminate a thermostat from being an intelligent system, since a thermostat only carries out one goal. Humans would be classified as relatively intelligent, since they can be given a wide variety of goals to achieve. It also has the benefit of assigning narrow-AI systems a very low intelligence, which is what we want it to do. -- http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tspro1/ | http://xuenay.livejournal.com/ Organizations worth your time: http://www.singinst.org/ | http://www.crnano.org/ | http://lifeboat.com/ ----- 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
