The small point I was trying to make was that cognitive architecture is much more important to the realization of AGI than the amount of processing power you have at your disposal, or some other such platform-related considerations.
It doesn't seem like a very controversial point to me. Objecting to it on the basis of the difficulty/impossibility of measuring intelligence seems like a bit of a tangent. --- On Wed, 10/15/08, Charles Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Charles Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [agi] Updated AGI proposal (CMR v2.1) > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 8:09 PM > It doesn't need to satisfy everyone, it just has to be > the definition > that you are using in your argument, and which you agree to > stick to. > > 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: [email protected] > >> Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 2:12 PM > >> If you want to argue this way (reasonable), then > you need a > >> specific > >> 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 > discussing > >> a student). > >> > >> Because of this, while I think your argument is > generally > >> reasonable, 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 the > >> true 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 that > >>> > >> intelligence 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 > and > >>>> > >> results is > >> > >>>> not > >>>> necessarily linear or even positively > correlated. > >>>> > >> And as > >> > >>>> an increase > >>>> in intelligence above a certain level > requires > >>>> > >> increased > >> > >>>> processing > >>>> power (or perhaps not? anyone disagree?). > >>>> > >>>> When the cost of adding more computational > power, > >>>> > >> outweighs > >> > >>>> the amount > >>>> of money or energy that you acquire from > adding > >>>> > >> the power, > >> > >>>> there is > >>>> not much point adding the computational > power. > >>>> > >> Apart from > >> > >>>> if you are > >>>> in competition with other agents, that can > out > >>>> > >> smart you. > >> > >>>> Some of the > >>>> traditional views of RSI neglects this and > thinks > >>>> > >> that > >> > >>>> increased > >>>> intelligence is always a useful thing. It > is not > >>>> > >> very > >> > >>>> There is a reason why lots of the planets > biomass > >>>> > >> has > >> > >>>> stayed as > >>>> bacteria. It does perfectly well like > that. It > >>>> > >> survives. > >> > >>>> Too much processing power is a bad thing, > it means > >>>> > >> less for > >> > >>>> self-preservation and affecting the world. > >>>> > >> Balancing them > >> > >>>> is 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/?&; > 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
