Pei Wang wrote:
On Jan 12, 2008 3:04 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Every time a dispute erupts about what the real definition of
"intelligence" is, all we really get is noise, because nobody is clear
about the role that the definition is supposed to play.
Richard,
I fully understand how annoying this kind of debate is, but given the
fact that my AGI-08 paper
(http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.AI_Definitions.pdf) happen to
be right on this topic, I have to object to your above strong
conclusion, by saying that at least I have tried to be "clear about
the role that the definition is supposed to play". ;-)
Pei,
That is fine: I was certainly not directing the comment at you, but at
the low-grade discussions that come up here so very frequently.
And, as I indicated, my particular beef was with Shane Legg's paper,
which I found singularly content-free.
Richard Loosemore
I know your target is probably not me (I never believe there is a
"real definition" as Shane), but to completely dismiss this kind of
discussion is not a good idea, as I argued in the paper. I won't
repeat the content of that paper any further, and will welcome
detailed criticism of it, either before or at AGI-08.
Pei
If the role is to distinguish Narrow AI from AGI, Ben's definition is
fine. If the role is to define a class of (arbitrary) systems, any
definition whatsoever is fine so long as there is no circularity in it
(although the result will not necessarly have any relationship to the
commonsense meaning of "intelligence"). If the role is to act as a
loose organizing principle for a field of inquiry, it needs to have some
power to act as an organizing principle.
With this in mind, Shane Legg's paper is not "the canonical reference",
it is a trivial reference, being nothing more than a naive list of
definitions collected from elsewhere, with only the shallowest
understanding of their context, relationships or roles.
Richard Loosemore
"At the University every great treatise is postponed until its author
attains impartial judgment and perfect knowledge. If a horse could wait
as long for its shoes and would pay for them in advance, our blacksmiths
would all be college dons."
- George Bernard Shaw: Maxims for Revolutionists (Man and Superman)
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
On definitions of intelligence, the canonical reference is
http://www.vetta.org/shane/intelligence.html
which lists 71 definitions. Apologies if someone already pointed out
Shane's page in this thread, I didn't read every message carefully.
An AGI definition of intelligence surely has, by definition! - to be
"general" rather than "complex" and emphasize "general
problemsolving/learning". That seems to be what you actually mean.
Mike:
Obviously, my "achieving complex goals in complex environments"
definition is intended to include "generality". It could be rephrased as
"effectively achieving a wide variety of complex goals in various
complex environments", with the "general" implicit in the "wide."
I also gave a math version of the definition in 1993, which is
totally unambiguous due to being math rather than words. I have
not bothered to look at the precise relations btw my older math
definition and Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter's more recent math
definition of intelligence. They are not identical but have a similar
spirit.
"Intelligence has many dimensions. A crucial dimension of a true
intelligence* is that it is general. It is a general problem-solver and
general learner, able to solve, and learn how to solve, problems in many,
and potentially infinite, domains - *without* being specially preprogrammed
for any one of them. All computers to date have been specialists. The goal
of Artificial General Intelligence is to create the first generalist."
The problem with your above "definition" is that it uses terms that are
themselves so extremely poorly-defined ;-)
Arguably it rules out the brain, which is heavily preprogrammed by
evolution in order to be good at certain things like vision, arm and
hand movement, social interaction, language parsing, etc.
And it does not rule out AIXItl type programs which achieve flexibility
trivially, at the cost of utilizing unacceptably much computational
resources...
The reality is that achieving general intelligence given finite resources
is probably always going to involve a combination of in-built
biases and general learning ability.
And where the line is drawn between "in-built biases" and
"preprogramming" is something that current comp/cog-sci does
not allow us to formally articulate in a really useful way.
This is a subtle issue, as e.g.
a program for carrying out a specific task, coupled with a general-
purpose learner of the right level of capability, may in effect
serve as a broader inductive bias helping with a wider variety
of tasks.
-- Ben
-----
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/?&;
-----
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=8660244&id_secret=85510706-449676
