Russell Wallace wrote:
On 3/8/07, *Richard Loosemore* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Let me put it this way: would AIXI, in building an implementation of
this function, have to make use of a universe (or universe simulation)
that *implicitly* included intelligences that were capable of creating
the IQ tests?
So, if there were a question like this in the IQ tests:
"Anna Nicole is to Monica Lewinsky as Madonna is to ......"
Would AIXI have to build a solution by implicitly deconstructing (if
you
see what I mean) the entire real universe, including its real human
societies and real (intelligent) human beings and real social
relationships?
If AIXI does a post-hoc deconstruction of some "real" intelligent
systems as part of building its own "intelligent" function, it is
parasitic on that intelligence.
You can confirm that it is not parasitic in that way?
If I understand you correctly, you ask two different questions here.
(Context: I'm assuming "IQ test" means a folder of IQ tests you might
actually buy from a real company today, not some hypothetical function
of arbitrary complexity.)
The first question is, consider the shortest program that would max out
the test. Does it consist of:
A) Start with the Big Bang, run 14 billion years, pick the Everett
branch that evolved English-speaking humans, send a UFO to abduct the
smartest human and present him with the test... (okay I'm being a little
facetious but you get the idea),
B) Some special-purpose hack that treats "Anna Nicole" etc as arbitrary
symbols without any of the connotations they have to us, _and does not
generalize to anything much other than IQ tests_.
Obviously it's unprovable, but I'm confident the answer is B based on
experience: the shortest program for any _particular_ task is almost
always a special-purpose hack that doesn't generalize.
And in case B, everyone would agree there is no great intelligence involved.
You then seem to be saying that even in case A, the intelligence would
reside in the genius evolved in the simulated universe, and
the apparent intelligence of AIXI would be "parasitical" on that, i.e.
AIXI itself wouldn't "really" be intelligent. As I said recently, I
agree with that position, but it's also one of philosophy, of how one
chooses to define the word "intelligence", not something amenable to
proof or disproof; to call AIXI intelligent in that scenario would
effectively be a form of pantheism.
That is kind of what I was saying (albeit a little embellished ;-) ).
But my only purpose was to ask "How does AIXI turn "Doing well on a long
series of IQ tests" into a computable function. As far as I can see, it
effectively simulates (or deconstructs) a universe in order to do so.
Or, at least, it allows itself that luxury if it needs it.
If it allows itself that luxury, theorems proved on the basis of that
luxury are useless.
Richard Loosemore
-----
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/?list_id=11983
