--- Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The terms "meaning" and "understanding" are not well defined for machines. > > Then rigorously define them for your purposes and stop complaining. If you > have an effective, coherent world model and if you can ground an input in > this model then you "understand" that input (i.e. that input has "meaning" > relative to your world model).
OK, how about Legg's definition of universal intelligence as a measure of how a system "understands" its environment? http://www.vetta.org/documents/ui_benelearn.pdf Of course it is rather impractical to test a system in a Solomonoff-Levin distribution over an infinite set of enviromnents. So we are back to defining "understanding" as something a human does, e.g. the Turing test, University of Phoenix test, and so on. Until you start putting your AGI in the sculls of babies, machines will always have a world model that differs from humans, better in some ways but inferior in others. In the narrow domain of arithmetic, a calculator's world model and understanding of numbers is superior to yours. If you dismiss a calculator as unintelligent because it doesn't know how many fingers you are holding up, then we will never have AGI no matter how smart computers get. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- 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
