>> Why do you think that a Legg-Hutter style intelligence test would
>> not expose an agent to things it hadn't seen before?  

I don't necessarily think that a Legg-Hutter style intelligence test would not 
expose an agent to things it hadn't seen before.  I was objecting to the fact 
that your paper did not even mention, much less stress, the fact that 
prediction of previously unseen things is critical to intelligence.  I agree 
with the first sentence of your second paragraph entirely but point out that a 
"by rote" machine with virtually infinite experience will test as if it had 
high universal intelligence unless the test manages to hit upon some area where 
it didn't have experience -- and I feel that this is entirely incorrect.  The 
*true* distinguishing feature between intelligent machines and "by rote" 
machines is how well they handle cases that they haven't seen before and, as I 
said, you didn't even really mention this in your paper (anywhere where I could 
find it, at least :-).


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Shane Legg 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 5:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [agi] rule-based NL system


  On 5/2/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


        One of the things that I think is *absolutely wrong* about Legg's paper 
is that he only uses more history as an example of generalization.  I think 
that predictive power is test for intelligence (just as he states) but that it 
*must* include things that the agent has never seen before.  In this sense, I 
think that Legg's paper is off the mark to the extent of being nearly useless 
(since you can see how it's has poisoned poor Matt's approach).

  Mark,

  Why do you think that a Legg-Hutter style intelligence test would
  not expose an agent to things it hadn't seen before?  

  To have a significant level of intelligence an agent must be able
  to deal with environments that are full of surprises and unknowns.
  Agents that can't do this would only be able to deal with the most
  basic environments, and thus would have a relatively low universal
  intelligence value.

  Cheers
  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/?&;

-----
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

Reply via email to