I would say "rote memorization" and knowledge / data, IS understanding.
I look outside and I see a tree, I understand that it is a tree, I know its a
tree, I know about leaves and grass and how it grows... I havnt learned
anything new, I memorized all that from books and teaching etc.
I would further say that I given the level of knowledge and understanding about
the tree that I was intelligent in that area, you could ask me questions and I
could answer them, I could conjecture what would happen if I dug the tree up
etc.
Learning does not seem to be a requirment for intelligence, though a good
intelligence, and a growing intelligence would need to learn.
James Ratcliff
Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi James,
I'm going to handle your questions in reverse order . . . .
> Do you think learning is a requirement for understanding, or intelligence?
Yes, I believe that learning is a requirement for intelligence. Intelligence
is basically how fast you learn. Zero learning equals zero intelligence.
> a reservation serivce has a world model as well, it knwo about 1000+
> airline routes and times, it talks to you, saves your preferences for
> outgoign flight, and can use that to think and come up with a suggestion
> for an incoming flight, and which airline to take
A reservation service does indeed have a world model but it is a *very*
simple model with very few object types, relationships, and actions. The
1000+ airline routes and times are merely data within the model and even if
they numbered a million they would not increase the size of the *model*. But
the most important thing is that the model is absolutely fixed -- i.e. the
system doesn't learn.
> and an expert system as having more intelligence due to a richer world
> model and more ability to give answers.
I would say that the expert system is more capable but would disagree that it
has more intelligence (unless it has some sort of learning functionality).
> If we took a 10 year old child, and stopped their ability to learn, they
> would still have the ability to do all the things they did before, can go
> to the store, and play and fix breakfast etc.
Again, I would phrase this as the child still has their old capabilities but
their intelligence has dropped to zero -- because realistically, they would
not maintain the ability to do all the things they did before. Initially, yes
-- BUT -- slowly and surely, as their environment changed, they would be less
and less capable of dealing with it as they couldn't learn what they needed to
cope with the change.
> But understanding itself doesnt have any special requirement that it
> understand New things, just the things that are currently considering.
Have you seen the things that you're currently considering before? If so,
how is rote memorization different from understanding?
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: James Ratcliff
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] rule-based NL system
Two problems unfortunatly arise quickly there,
1. Internal World Model.
An intelligence must have some form of internal world model, because this
is what it operates on internally, its memory,
People have a complex world model including everythign we have built up
over years, but a reservation serivce has a world model as well, it knwo
about 1000+ airline routes and times, it talks to you, saves your
preferences for outgoign flight, and can use that to think and come up with
a suggestion for an incoming flight, and which airline to take. If the
system contains weather data as well, and can use it, then it could be more
intelligent.
It has a world model built up there, not as complex, but defintly there,
and I would rate that as having some level of "intelligence" and an expert
system as having more intelligence due to a richer world model and more
ability to give answers.
2. Learning.
Probably a contreversial point here, but
Do you think learning is a requirement for understanding, or intelligence?
For an intelligence, I dont believe it is. If we took a 10 year old child,
and stopped their ability to learn, they would still have the ability to do
all the things they did before, can go to the store, and play and fix
breakfast etc.
Now for an AGI to grow and be able to do more and more things, it needs to
have the ability to learn. But understanding itself doesnt have any special
requirement that it understand New things, just the things that are
currently considering.
Jame Ratcliff
Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What definition of intelligence
would you like to use?
Legg's definition is perfectly fine for me.
> 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.
What does "being preferred by humans" have to do with (almost any
definition
of) intelligence? If you mean that it can solve any problem (i.e. tell a
caller how to reach any goal -- or better yet even, assist them) then,
sure,
it works for me. If it's only dealing with a limited domain, like being a
travel agent, then I'd call it a narrow AI. Intelligence is only as good
as
your model of the world and what it allows you to do (which is pretty much
a
paraphrasing of Legg's definition as far as I'm concerned). And if you're
not using an expandable model, as a calculator is not, then you're not
intelligent.
> 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?
And I'll claim that it doesn't understand a thing UNLESS it has a model of
it's world (which could be text-only for all I care but which has the
behavior necessary for it to accurately answer questions about the real
world) that it is relating your words to. If it has that and can add to
it's world as new things are introduced to it from the "real" world, then
I'm very willing to say that it is intelligent and that it understands
it's
world. If not, you just have an unintelligent program.
> Its world model will be different than that of a human, but so what?
I've never claimed that an intelligence's world model has to be anything
like that of a human. All I require is that it be effective and
expandable.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Mahoney"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] rule-based NL system
> --- Mark Waser 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/?&;
>
-----
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/?&;
_______________________________________
James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com
Looking for something...
---------------------------------
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
---------------------------------
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/?&;
_______________________________________
James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com
Looking for something...
---------------------------------
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
-----
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
