>> I would say "rote memorization" and knowledge / data, IS understanding.
OK, we have a definitional difference then. My justification for my view
is that I believe that you only *really* understand something when you have
predictive power on cases that you haven't directly seen yet (sort of like
saying that, in order to be useful or have any value, a hypothesis must have
predictive power).
>> 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 don't think so. I think that you have a lot of information that you
derived from generalizations, analogies, etc (i.e. learning).
>> 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.
Are you *sure* that you've been directly told what would happen if you dug
a tree up? What do you think would happen if you dug up a planticus imaginus?
I'm sure that you haven't been specifically told what would happen then. :-)
I think that you have some serious predictive power that is *not* just rote
memorization.
>> Learning does not seem to be a requirment for intelligence, though a good
>> intelligence, and a growing intelligence would need to learn.
Your definition of intelligence is apparently (and correct me if I'm wrong) how
well something deals with it's environment. My contention is that anything
that doesn't learn will necessarily undergo a degradation of their ability to
deal with it's environment. If you agree with this, then why don't you agree
with learning being a requirement for intelligence?
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: James Ratcliff
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] rule-based NL system
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/?&;
-----
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
