http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html
-- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ________________________________ From: David Jones <[email protected]> To: agi <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, July 18, 2010 3:10:12 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Of definitions and tests of AGI If you can't convince someone, clearly something is wrong with it. I don't think a "test" is the right way to do this. Which is why I haven't commented much. When you understand how to create AGI, it will be obvious that it is AGI or that it is what you intend it to be. You'll then understand how what you have built fits into the bigger scheme of things. There is no such point at which you can say something is "AGI" and not "AGI". Intelligence is a very subjective thing that really depends on your goals. Someone will always say it is not good enough. But if it really works, people will quickly realize it based on results. What you want is to develop a system that can learn about the world or its environment in a general way so that it can solve arbitrary problems, be able to plan in general ways, act in general ways and perform the types of goals you want it to perform. Dave On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:03 PM, deepakjnath <[email protected]> wrote: So if I have a system that is close to AGI, I have no way of really knowing it right? > >Even if I believe that my system is a true AGI there is no way of convincing >the >others irrefutably that this system is indeed a AGI not just an advanced AI >system. > >I have read the toy box problem and rock wall problem, but not many people >will >still be convinced I am sure. > >I wanted to know that if there is any consensus on a general problem which can >be solved and only solved by a true AGI. Without such a test bench how will we >know if we are moving closer or away from our quest. There is no map. > >Deepak > > > > > >On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: > >I realised that what is needed is a *joint* definition *and* range of tests >of >AGI. >> >>Benamin Johnston has submitted one valid test - the toy box problem. (See >>archives). >> >>I have submitted another still simpler valid test - build a rock wall from >>rocks given, (or fill an earth hole with rocks). >> >>However, I see that there are no valid definitions of AGI that explain what >>AGI >>is generally , and why these tests are indeed AGI. Google - there are v. few >>defs. of AGI or Strong AI, period. >> >>The most common: AGI is human-level intelligence - is an >>embarrassing non-starter - what distinguishes human intelligence? No >>explanation offered. >> >>The other two are also inadequate if not as bad: Ben's "solves a variety of >>complex problems in a variety of complex environments". Nope, so does a >>multitasking narrow AI. Complexity does not distinguish AGI. Ditto Pei's - >>something to do with "insufficient knowledge and resources..." >>"Insufficient" is open to narrow AI interpretations and reducible to >>mathematically calculable probabilities.or uncertainties. That doesn't >>distinguish AGI from narrow AI. >> >>The one thing we should all be able to agree on (but who can be sure?) is >that: >> >>** an AGI is a general intelligence system, capable of independent learning** >> >>i.e. capable of independently learning new activities/skills with minimal >>guidance or even, ideally, with zero guidance (as humans and animals are) - >>and >>thus acquiring a "general", "all-round" range of intelligence.. >> >> >>This is an essential AGI goal - the capacity to keep entering and mastering >>new domains of both mental and physical skills WITHOUT being specially >>programmed each time - that crucially distinguishes it from narrow AI's, >>which >>have to be individually programmed anew for each new task. Ben's AGI dog >>exemplified this in a v simple way - the dog is supposed to be able to >>learn >>to fetch a ball, with only minimal instructions, as real dogs do - they can >>learn a whole variety of new skills with minimal instruction. But I am >>confident Ben's dog can't actually do this. >> >>However, the independent learning def. while focussing on the distinctive >>AGI >>goal, still is not detailed enough by itself. >> >>It requires further identification of the **cognitive operations** which >>distinguish AGI, and wh. are exemplified by the above tests. >> >>[I'll stop there for interruptions/comments & continue another time]. >> >> P.S. Deepakjnath, >> >>It is vital to realise that the overwhelming majority of AGI-ers do not * >>want* >>an AGI test - Ben has never gone near one, and is merely typical in this >>respect. I'd put almost all AGI-ers here in the same league as the US banks, >>who only want mark-to-fantasy rather than mark-to-market tests of their >>assets. >>agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > > >-- >cheers, >Deepak > >agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
