Richard,
I don't think Shane and Marcus's overview of definitions-of-intelligence
is poor quality.
I think it is just doing something different than what you think it should be
doing.
The overview is exactly that: A review of what researchers have said about
the definition of intelligence.
Pei Wang wrote:
On Jan 13, 2008 7:40 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, as I indicated, my particular beef was with Shane Legg's paper,
which I found singularly content-free.
Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter have a recent publication on this topic,
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Richard,
I don't think Shane and Marcus's overview of definitions-of-intelligence
is poor quality.
I'll explain why I said poor quality.
In my experience of marking student essays, there is a stereotype of the
night before deadline essay, which goes like this. If
Your job is to be diplomatic. Mine is to call a spade a spade. ;-)
Richard Loosemore
I would rephrase it like this: Your job is to make me look diplomatic ;-p
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Your job is to be diplomatic. Mine is to call a spade a spade. ;-)
Richard Loosemore
I would rephrase it like this: Your job is to make me look diplomatic ;-p
I agree: I am undiplomatic and unreasonable.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The
I heavily agree with you, Richard. But perhaps the Hutter exercise has some
value - simply by way of making us question the validity of any mathematical
approach to intelligence.
Well, there IS some value, (although BTW, at a glance they don't seem to
recognize that IQ is not even a direct
On Jan 14, 2008 10:10 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any fool can mathematize a definition of a commonsense idea without
actually saying anything new.
Ouch. Careful. :) That may be true, but it takes $10M worth of
computer hardware to disprove.
disclaimer: that was humor
Pei Wang wrote:
On Jan 12, 2008 3:04 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every time a dispute erupts about what the real definition of
intelligence is, all we really get is noise, because nobody is clear
about the role that the definition is supposed to play.
Richard,
I fully
On Jan 13, 2008 7:40 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, as I indicated, my particular beef was with Shane Legg's paper,
which I found singularly content-free.
Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter have a recent publication on this topic,
Every time a dispute erupts about what the real definition of
intelligence is, all we really get is noise, because nobody is clear
about the role that the definition is supposed to play.
If the role is to distinguish Narrow AI from AGI, Ben's definition is
fine. If the role is to define a
On Jan 12, 2008 3:04 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every time a dispute erupts about what the real definition of
intelligence is, all we really get is noise, because nobody is clear
about the role that the definition is supposed to play.
Richard,
I fully understand how
11 matches
Mail list logo
