Shane,
Little bit confusing here - & perhaps too general and unfocussed to pursue
really
But interestingly while you deny that the given conception of intelligence is
rational and deterministic.. you then proceed to argue rationally and
deterministically. First, that there IS a right way to invest, a right way to
maximise your profit [reward/risk/ cost etc] And then secondly, that the
universal intelligence measure is universally applicable.
The reality of investing is, in reply to your :
"Take all these factors and define a utility function over the possible
outcomes. If you can't do this
then you don't really know exactly what it is that you desire. "
that actually you DON'T usually know what you desire. You have conflicting
desires and goals. [Just how much do you want sex right now? Can you produce a
computable function for your desire?] And you have to commit yourself at a
given point, but that and your priorities can change the next minute.
And vis-a-vis universal intelligence, I'll go with Ben
"According to Ben Goertzel, Ph. D, "Since universal intelligence is only
definable up to an arbitrary constant, it's of at best ~heuristic~ value in
thinking about the constructure of real AI systems. In reality, different
universally intelligent modules may be practically applicable to different
types of problems." [8]"
You seem to want to pin AG intelligence down precisely, I want to be more
pluralistic - and recognize that uncertainty and conflict are fundamental to
its operation.
----- Original Message -----
From: Shane Legg
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence
Mike,
1) It seems to assume that intelligence is based on a rational,
deterministic program - is that right? Adaptive intelligence, I would argue,
definitely isn't. There isn't a rational, right way to approach the problems
adaptive intelligence has to deal with.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The agent that we measure the
intelligence of does
not have to be deterministic, nor does the environment. Indeed, the agent
doesn't even
have to have a computable probability distribution, it could work by magic
for all we care.
2) It assumes that intelligent agents maximise their rewards. Wrong. You
don't except in extreme situations try to maximise your rewards when you invest
on the stockmarket - or invest in any other action.
In the real world, you have to decide how to invest your time, energy and
resources in taking/solving problematic decisions/problems (like how to invest
on the stockmarket). Those decisions carry rewards, risks and uncertainty. The
higher the rewards, the higher the risks (nor just of failure but of all kinds
of danger). The lower the rewards, the lower the risks (and the greater the
security).
Let's say that you want to invest money in a low risk way that still has some
minimal
level of return. In other words, you don't want to simply maximise your
expected
return, rather you want to maximise some balance of return and risk (or any
other
things you also want to take into account such as time and energy). Take all
these
factors and define a utility function over the possible outcomes. If you
can't do this
then you don't really know exactly what it is that you desire. Now simply
consider
the reward signal from the environment to the agent to be exactly the utility
function
that you just defined. In order to perform well in this setting the agent
must work
out how to balance return on investment against risks etc. Moreover, this
type of
environment still has a computable measure and thus is already contained in
our
intelligence test.
3) And finally, just to really screw up this search for intelligence
definitions - any definition will be fundamentally ARBITRARY There will always
be conflicting ideals of what intelligent problem solving involves..
There is no such thing as a provably true definition. However some
definitions are
clearer, more general and more consistent with the informal usage than others.
So let me put the challenge to you: Can you name one well defined process to
do
with intelligent problem solving that universal intelligence doesn't already
test for?
Shane
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/?&;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 27/04/2007
13:39
-----
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
