E.g., if you define intelligence to be the resources used (given some metric) in solving some particular selection of problems, then that is a particular definition of intelligence. It may not be a very good one, though, as it looks like a system that knows the answers ahead of time and responds quickly would win over one that understood the problems in depth. Rather like a multiple choice test rather than an essay.
I'm sure that one could fudge the definition to skirt that particular pothole, but it would be an ad hoc patch. I don't trust that entire mechanism of defining intelligence. Still, if I know what you mean, I don't have to accept your interpretations to understand your argument. (You can't average across all domains, only across some pre-specified set of domains. Infinity doesn't exist in the implementable universe.)
Personally, I'm not convinced by the entire process of "measuring intelligence". I don't think that there *IS* any such thing. If it were a disease, I'd call intelligence a syndrome rather than a diagnosis. It's a collection of partially related capabilities given one name to make them easy to think about, while ignoring details. As such it has many uses, but it's easy to mistake it for some genuine thing, especially as it's an intangible.
As an analogy consider the "gene for blue eyes". There is no such gene. There is a combination of genes that yields blue eyes, and it's characterized by the lack of genes for other eye colors. (It's more complex than that, but that's enough.)
E.g., there appears to be a particular gene which is present in almost all people which enables them to parse grammatical sentences. But there have been found a few people in one family where this gene is damaged. The result is that about half the members of that family can't speak or understand language. Are they unintelligent? Well, the can't parse grammatical sentences, and they can't learn language. In most other ways they appear as intelligent as anyone else.
So I'm suspicious of ALL definitions of intelligence which treat it as some kind of global thing. But if you give me the definition that you are using in an argument, then I can at least attempt to understand what you are saying.
Terren Suydam wrote:
Charles, I'm not sure it's possible to nail down a measure of intelligence that's going to satisfy everyone. Presumably, it would be some measure of performance in problem solving across a wide variety of novel domains in complex (i.e. not toy) environments. Obviously among potential agents, some will do better in domain D1 than others, while doing worse in D2. But we're looking for an average across all domains. My task-specific examples may have confused the issue there, you were right to point that out. But if you give all agents identical processing power and storage space, then the winner will be the one that was able to assimilate and model each problem space the most efficiently, on average. Which ultimately means the one which used the *least* amount of overall computation. Terren --- On Tue, 10/14/08, Charles Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:From: Charles Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [agi] Updated AGI proposal (CMR v2.1) To: agi@v2.listbox.com Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 2:12 PM If you want to argue this way (reasonable), then you need aspecific definition of intelligence. One that allows it to be accurately measured (and not just "in principle"). IQ definitely won't serve. Neither will G. Neither will GPA (if you're discussinga student). Because of this, while I think your argument is generallyreasonable, I don't thing it's useful. Most of what you are discussing is "task specific", and as such I'm not sure that intelligence is a reasonable term to use. An expert engineer might be, e.g., a lousy bridge player. Yet both are thought of as requiring intelligence. I would assert that in both cases a lot of what's being measured is task specific processing, i.e., narrow AI.(Of course, I also believe that an AGI is impossible in thetrue sense of general, and that an approximately AGI will largely act as a coordinator between a bunch of narrow AI pieces of varying generality. This seems to be a distinctly minority view.)Terren Suydam wrote:Hi Will, I think humans provide ample evidence thatintelligence is not necessarily correlated with processing power. The genius engineer in my example solves a given problem with *much less* overall processing than the ordinary engineer, so in this case intelligence is correlated with some measure of "cognitive efficiency" (which I will leave undefined). Likewise, a grandmaster chess player looks at a given position and can calculate a better move in one second than you or me could come up with if we studied the board for an hour. Grandmasters often do publicity events where they play dozens of people simultaneously, spending just a few seconds on each board, and winning most of the games.Of course, you were referring to intelligence"above a certain level", but if that level is high above human intelligence, there isn't much we can assume about that since it is by definition unknowable by humans.Terren --- On Tue, 10/14/08, William Pearson<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:The relationship between processing power andresults isnot necessarily linear or even positively correlated.And asan increase in intelligence above a certain level requiresincreasedprocessing power (or perhaps not? anyone disagree?). When the cost of adding more computational power,outweighsthe amount of money or energy that you acquire from addingthe power,there isnot much point adding the computational power.Apart fromif you are in competition with other agents, that can outsmart you.Some of the traditional views of RSI neglects this and thinksthatincreased intelligence is always a useful thing. It is notveryThere is a reason why lots of the planets biomasshasstayed as bacteria. It does perfectly well like that. Itsurvives.Too much processing power is a bad thing, it meansless forself-preservation and affecting the world.Balancing themis a tricky proposition indeed. Will Pearson------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
