Well I will go with the high level of intelligence condition,
and I would think it is pretty obvious.
We know already that among humans there is a grading or levels of intelligence,
so unless there is some specific "thing" you must have to be intelligent,
I would consider a 20 yr old, a 10, and a 5 yr old intelligent, and measure the
intelligence with a "list" of things they can do, they can walk, talk move
around blocks, etc, the extent they can accomplish what they want.
A quadrapeligic who cant move but can only type is still intelligent,
What about a brain damaged person with alzeihmers? They cant remember well but
maybe they can still dress and eat by themselves, just not hold a job.
A savant that can be trained to water the flowers in a garden? eh cant do
anything else btu this one function, but he can look and tell if they need
water, and which ones to water, and can accept instruction.. I think that is
still intelligentn behavior, but is extremely limited.
Dogs can be trained to rescue or so search out drugs, which is intelligent, but
a narrow usage.
Expert systems are quite smart in their domains,
and thermostats have a range of intelligence. Ours here at the house has one
box upstairs and downstiars controlled by a main unit, that could do a range of
things.
High-level or approaching human level intelligence is what most of us are all
concerned with here, but I think in defining intelligence we have to be able to
look all the way up and down the range that it offers and recognize these as
having intelligence.
If you dont call a thermostat intelligent, then you have to in some other way
define what it does, either by saying its an object that "makes decisions based
on input" or "simply programmed" or whatnot, these all boil down and start
looking like our various intelligence definitions, "accept input, make
decisions, give output, try to reach a goal"
Anything lacking one of those 4 components I might not think of as intelligent.
James Ratcliff
Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My view of intelligence is
rather different. I don't believe that a thermostat has intelligence (and
saying so tends to invite ridicule which is bad public relations). I *do*
understand your point but saying that a thermostat has intelligence violates
the common man's understanding of intelligence -- and that is not a good thing
to do unless you have very good reason.
Maybe you should just assume that my intelligence is equivalent to your
"high-level of intelligence". If you're willing to do so, though, I'll
immediately ask why you need to call a non-high-level of intelligence
intelligent. :-)
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: James Ratcliff
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] rule-based NL system
Its mainly that I believe there is a full range of intelligences
available, from a simple thermostat, to a complex one that measures and
controls humudity and knows if a person is in a run, and has specific
settings for differnt people, to a an expert system, to a human to an AI and
super AGI, all having some level of intelligence.
The ones we are concerned with are the 1/2 human level and anything above.
Learning I would say is a key role in having a high-level of intelligence,
probably the main building block, learning and reasoning, both tied tightly
together.
James Ratcliff
Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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/?&;
_______________________________________
James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com
Looking for something...
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
---------------------------------
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...
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
-----
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
