--- Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, how about Legg's definition of universal intelligence as a measure of > > how > > a system "understands" its environment? > > OK. What purpose do you wish to use Legg's definition for? You immediately > discard it below . . . .
What definition of intelligence would you like to use? How about the "answering machine" test for intelligence? A machine passes the test if people prefer talking to it over talking to a human. For example, I prefer to buy airline tickets online rather than talk to a travel agent. To pass the answering machine test, I would make the same preference given only voice communication, even if I know I won't be put on hold, charged a higher price, etc. It does not require passing the Turing test. I may be perfectly aware it is a machine. You may substitute instant messages for voice if you wish. I claim that a system that can pass this test "understands" my words and knows what they mean, even if the words are not grounded in nonverbal sensorimotor experience. Its world model will be different than that of a human, but so what? -- 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
