Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Intelligence requires an intelligent agent to judge, you cant have a non-intelligent thing determine that something else has intelligence. Likewise the definition of inteligence is goig to use one of the buzzwords, no matter how you look at it. The Degree of intelligence, which is our main conc

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

I think that the hardest part to finding a solution to a difficult problem often lies in finding the right way to view the problem, in order words, the right representation. Cheers Shane Yes ... but, what this means is that a critical task of AGI design is to be sure your AGI has, or has the

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Ben, Are you claiming that the choice of "compiler constant" is not pragmatically significant in the definition of the Solomonoff-Levin universal prior, and in Kolmogorov complexity? For finite binary sequences... I really don't see this, so it would be great if you could elaborate. In som

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

On 4/29/07, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: To use another pragmatic example, both LISP and FORTRAN have universal computing power, but, some programs are **way** shorter to code in LISP than FORTRAN, and this makes a big practical difference. Even though it's true that length(P i

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Shane: "According to Ben Goertzel, Ph. D, "Since universal intelligence is only > definable up to an arbitrary constant, it's of at best ~heuristic~ value in > thinking about the constructure of real AI systems. In reality, different > universally intelligent modules may be practically applicabl

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Mike, But interestingly while you deny that the given conception of intelligence is rational and deterministic.. you then proceed to argue rationally and deterministically. Universal intelligence is not based on a definition of what rationality is. It is based on the idea of achievement. I b

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

pluralistic - and recognize that uncertainty and conflict are fundamental to its operation. - Original Message - From: Shane Legg To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence Mike, 1)

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Mike, 1) It seems to assume that intelligence is based on a rational, deterministic program - is that right? Adaptive intelligence, I would argue, definitely isn't. There isn't a rational, right way to approach the problems adaptive intelligence has to deal with. I'm not sure what you mean by

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

On Friday 27 April 2007 17:44, John G. Rose wrote: > So then we decide OK let's try to measure the temperature of a black hole > so we jettison the X1117 into the black hole and right before it passes the > event horizon it converts itself into radially emitted neutrinos by > sacrificing itself an

RE: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

All this talk about stupid thermometers... Some thermometers are smarter than others. Why? When it comes to telling temperature they know what they are talking about. Some have higher margins of error; they may be off by 1/2 degree F. Others are right on. But then put one in an environment th

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence - who cares?

--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > > > > > Has anyone noticed that people who have studied AGI all their lives, > > like > > Kurzweil and Minsky, aren't trying to build one? > > > > > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence - who cares?

Benjamin Goertzel wrote: Has anyone noticed that people who have studied AGI all their lives, like Kurzweil and Minsky, aren't trying to build one? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't get it ... some of us who have studied AGI all our lives

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence - who cares?

: Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence - who cares? So far as I know, Kurzweil never made a serious effort to create AGI. Minsky did, but he made some serious conceptual errors, in spite of his obvious brilliance... -- Ben G On 4/27/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence - who cares?

So far as I know, Kurzweil never made a serious effort to create AGI. Minsky did, but he made some serious conceptual errors, in spite of his obvious brilliance... -- Ben G On 4/27/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > H

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence - who cares?

--- Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Has anyone noticed that people who have studied AGI all their lives, like > > Kurzweil and Minsky, aren't trying to build one? > > > > > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > I don't get it ... some of us who have studied

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

e latter gets better results? This isn't to argue that we shouldn't use measures of intelligence - just that we should remember that they aren't and can't be definitive. . - Original Message - From: Shane Legg To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Friday, Ap

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

: Friday, April 27, 2007 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence I guess I don't really understand your formalism, i.e. -- how you define a "world-state" ... do you mean a set of elementary world-states described by some logical predicate? -- how do

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

On 4/27/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If all definitions of intelligence end up with a judgment call, we might as well throw away all of them and just say "Intelligence is what a human would consider intelligent". That is useless, of course, but no less useless than longer def

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

ro intelligence) -- Yes, I am quite sure that your intelligence is higher than that of that pesky particle (whom *you* are trying to ascribe goals to . . . . :-) - Original Message - From: "Richard Loosemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:07 PM Sub

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence - who cares?

Has anyone noticed that people who have studied AGI all their lives, like Kurzweil and Minsky, aren't trying to build one? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't get it ... some of us who have studied AGI all our lives ARE trying to build one... - This list is sponsored by AGIRI:

[agi] Circular definitions of intelligence - who cares?

Maybe you want to build an intelligent system to get a better understanding of how people think. Or maybe you want to make money. Or maybe it would be cool to launch a singularity. None of these projects is going to result in something indistinguishable from a human brain. They will be machines

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

What is a waste of time, however, is for someone to think that they have made some progress by going from a partial description that is 8 words long to a partial description that is 21 words long. 210,000 words, maybe (if it were coherent enough). But in the jump from 8 to 21 I see nothing bu

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

se provide an example . . . . - Original Message - *From:* Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Friday, April 27, 2007 12:50 PM *Subject:* Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence On 4/27/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Kaj, (Disclaimer: I do not claim to know the sort of maths that Ben and Hutter and others have used in defining intelligence. I'm fully aware that I'm dabbling in areas that I have little education in, and might be making a complete fool of myself. Nonetheless...) I'm currently writing my PhD

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

riginal Message - From: Benjamin Goertzel To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence On 4/27/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 4/26/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Benjamin Goertzel wrote: If all definitions of intelligence end up with a judgment call, we might as well throw away all of them and just say "Intelligence is what a human would consider intelligent". But, also, then "Sexy is what a human would consider sexy" Yet, intelligence

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Mark Waser wrote: On 4/26/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can you point to an objective definition that is clear about which things are more intelligent than others, and which does not accidentally include things that manifestly conflict with the commonsense definition (by fal

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Yet, intelligence and sexiness are not the same thing... Though fortunately for us geeks, some people do find them to be correlated ;-D - 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

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

If all definitions of intelligence end up with a judgment call, we might as well throw away all of them and just say "Intelligence is what a human would consider intelligent". But, also, then "Sexy is what a human would consider sexy" Yet, intelligence and sexiness are not the same thing...

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Kaj Sotala wrote: On 4/26/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can you point to an objective definition that is clear about which things are more intelligent than others, and which does not accidentally include things that manifestly conflict with the commonsense definition (by false

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

On 4/27/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 4/26/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Can you point to an objective definition that is clear about which >>> things are more intelligent than others, and which does not accidentally >>> include things that manifestly con

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

On 4/26/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can you point to an objective definition that is clear about which things are more intelligent than others, and which does not accidentally include things that manifestly conflict with the commonsense definition (by false negatives or false

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

mplexity of the model needed to deal with the problem - like the map, needed to travel through a territory - Original Message - From: "Kaj Sotala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence On 4/2

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

On 4/26/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can you point to an objective definition that is clear about which things are more intelligent than others, and which does not accidentally include things that manifestly conflict with the commonsense definition (by false negatives or false

RE: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

> From: J. Storrs Hall, PhD. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > (With a wink towards Ben) > > Cheney goes into the Oval Office with the latest war report. > > "Three Brazilian soldiers died in the latest bombing." > > Bush gasps and turns ash-gray. > > "Oh my God!" he says. His brow wrinkles in th

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

orms must objectively be defined first in terms of humans and animals. - Original Message - From: "Richard Loosemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence Mike Tintner wrote: It's driving m

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Turing Test example, but without its impossible vagueness.. ----- Original Message - From: "Richard Loosemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:58 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence Mike Tintner wrote: You guys are driv

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

--- "J. Storrs Hall, PhD." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's worth reading Ch. 28 of Metamagical Themas in this connection (p700ff > in > the paperback ed.). Hofstadter introduces a whole bunch of games with just > this character, and has a lots of fun with the "what if he thinks that I > thin

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

I'm probably an idiot for diving into this but . . . Intelligence is the ability to navigate from the current world state to a pre-defined alternate world state. The more effectively you navigate (i.e. the higher your success ratio), the more intelligent you are. Thermometers have zero inte

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

ith the memorability of the Turing Test example, but without its impossible vagueness.. - Original Message - From: "Richard Loosemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:58 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence Mike T

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

(With a wink towards Ben) Cheney goes into the Oval Office with the latest war report. "Three Brazilian soldiers died in the latest bombing." Bush gasps and turns ash-gray. "Oh my God!" he says. His brow wrinkles in thought. "How many is a brazillion?" Perhaps a thermostat has "military intel

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Mike Tintner wrote: You guys are driving me nuts. Jumping in at the middle, here goes: "Intelligence is the capacity to solve problems. (An intelligent agent solves problems in order to reach its goals) Problems occur when an agent must select between two or more paths to reach its goals. So

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence Benjamin Goertzel wrote: 2) The definition clearly says at least something about how to measure this degree of intelligence (rather than just handwaving about the

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Several emails ago, both Ben and Richard said they were no longer going to continue this argument, yet here they are - still arguing. Will the definition of intelligence be able to accomodate this behavior by these gentlemen? Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - When you try

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

- When you try to cash out that compression function, I claim, you will end up in a situation where the system's real world behavior depends on exactly which 'patterns' it chooses to go hunting for, and how it deploys them. The devil is in the details that you do not specify here, so any dec

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Benjamin Goertzel wrote: 2) The definition clearly says at least something about how to measure this degree of intelligence (rather than just handwaving about the possibility that there might be different degrees), and This is the shortcoming of the optimization-based approach to

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

2) The definition clearly says at least something about how to measure this degree of intelligence (rather than just handwaving about the possibility that there might be different degrees), and This is the shortcoming of the optimization-based approach to defining intelligence, at present. L

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

One point of clarification about the argument I am trying to bring to bear here, about the definition of intelligence. I am not saying that it is wrong to *informally* say that there are different degrees of intelligence, and that thermostats are, in a sense, part of a continuum that include

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Benjamin Goertzel wrote: b) Was a definition of such broad scope that it did not even slightly coincide with the commonsense usage of the word "intelligent" ... for example, it allowed an algorithm that optimized ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to be have the word 'intelligent' attached to

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

On 26/04/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Consider that, folks, to be a challenge: to those who think there is such a definition, I await your reply. While I don't think it the sum of all intelligence, I'm studying something I think is a precondition of being intelligent. That

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

b) Was a definition of such broad scope that it did not even slightly coincide with the commonsense usage of the word "intelligent" ... for example, it allowed an algorithm that optimized ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to be have the word 'intelligent' attached to it, But, so what if my definition all

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Benjamin Goertzel wrote: For example, the statement that "An AI is an agent that tries to satisfy a set of goals" (or some such wording) seems to make the AI endeavor look like it starts from a clear conceptual beginning that DOES NOT REFER to any attempt to copy human intellige

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

It's worth reading Ch. 28 of Metamagical Themas in this connection (p700ff in the paperback ed.). Hofstadter introduces a whole bunch of games with just this character, and has a lots of fun with the "what if he thinks that I think that he thinks" type analysis. He is then disappointed when a si

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

For example, the statement that "An AI is an agent that tries to satisfy a set of goals" (or some such wording) seems to make the AI endeavor look like it starts from a clear conceptual beginning that DOES NOT REFER to any attempt to copy human intelligence. This is why the agent-talk definition

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Panu Horsmalahti wrote: In my opinion the definition of intelligence is a machine that has an input and an output. It covers all the intelligent systems you can imagine, but also things like thermostats. I think it is too human centric to think that a thermostat is not intelligent because it do

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

In my opinion the definition of intelligence is a machine that has an input and an output. It covers all the intelligent systems you can imagine, but also things like thermostats. I think it is too human centric to think that a thermostat is not intelligent because it doesn't have legs and it can'

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Suppose a machine at each time step outputs a 0 or a 1, then inputs a 0 or a 1 from an unknown environment. The goal of the machine is to predict the next input bit. This goal is precisely defined. It is also consistent with some popular definitions of intelligence. For example, if the source o

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Benjamin Goertzel wrote: Are you implying that there is a definition of intelligence that allows things to be classified according to their DEGREE of intelligence, with thermostats at one end and humans at the other? I believe the "maximizing complex functions dependent on complex

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Are you implying that there is a definition of intelligence that allows things to be classified according to their DEGREE of intelligence, with thermostats at one end and humans at the other? I believe the "maximizing complex functions dependent on complex environments" does that, yes. But

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Benjamin Goertzel wrote: No, a fuzzy definition isn't pointless ... it's just fuzzy ... If you can distinguish humans from thermostats by their DEGREE of intelligence, what's the problem if your definition says thermostats are SLIGHTLY intelligent Of course, there are going to be many inter

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

No, a fuzzy definition isn't pointless ... it's just fuzzy ... If you can distinguish humans from thermostats by their DEGREE of intelligence, what's the problem if your definition says thermostats are SLIGHTLY intelligent Of course, there are going to be many interesting structures and dynamics

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Benjamin Goertzel wrote: A thermostat is intelligent, in my view, it's just not **very** intelligent... The functions a thermostat approximately maximizes are nowhere near as complex as the ones a human brain approximately maximizes... Now there is the problem. I am happy enough to agree

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

A thermostat is intelligent, in my view, it's just not **very** intelligent... The functions a thermostat approximately maximizes are nowhere near as complex as the ones a human brain approximately maximizes... What's wrong with it is that this definition is so broad that it can make a thermo

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Benjamin Goertzel wrote: Unfortunately, I do not think any of the existing definitions of intelligence (include yours above, and those offered by Hutter, Legg, etc) are worth anything, for the following reason: Take a look at the word 'goal'. The only way that this term can

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Unfortunately, I do not think any of the existing definitions of intelligence (include yours above, and those offered by Hutter, Legg, etc) are worth anything, for the following reason: Take a look at the word 'goal'. The only way that this term can be defined is subjectively: you have to use

Re: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

007 10:31 AM Subject: [agi] Circular definitions of intelligence > Benjamin Goertzel wrote: >> >> Well, in my 1993 book "The Structure of Intelligence" I defined >> intelligence as >> >> "The ability to achieve complex goals in complex environmen

[agi] Circular definitions of intelligence

Benjamin Goertzel wrote: Well, in my 1993 book "The Structure of Intelligence" I defined intelligence as "The ability to achieve complex goals in complex environments." I followed this up with a mathematical definition of complexity grounded in algorithmic information theory (roughly: the co