Philip Hunt wrote:
2008/12/26 Matt Mahoney <matmaho...@yahoo.com>:
I have updated my universal intelligence test with benchmarks on about 100
compression programs.
Humans aren't particularly good at compressing data. Does this mean
humans aren't intelligent, or is it a poor definition of intelligence?
Although my goal was to sample a Solomonoff distribution to measure universal
intelligence (as defined by Hutter and Legg),
If I define intelligence as the ability to catch mice, does that mean
my cat is more intelligent than most humans?
More to the point, I don't understand the point of defining
intelligence this way. Care to enlighten me?
This may or may not help, but in the past I have pursued exactly these
questions, only to get such confusing, evasive and circular answers, all
of which amounted to nothing meaningful, that eventually I (like many
others) have just had to give up and not engage any more.
So, the real answers to your questions are that no, compression is an
extremely poor definition of intelligence; and yes, defining
intelligence to be something completely arbitrary (like the ability to
catch mice) is what Hutter and Legg's analyses are all about.
Searching for previous posts of mine which mention Hutter, Legg or AIXI
will probably turn up a number of lengthy discussion in which I took a
deal of trouble to debunk this stuff.
Feel free, of course, to make your own attempt to extract some sense
from it all, and by all means let me know if you eventually come to a
different conclusion.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
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=123753653-47f84b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
