4 ms·
For any interactive reward-giving environment E, you could place X into E and see how much reward X gets; likewise for Y. If X gets more reward, you can conside
by solipsism 7y ago
For any interactive reward-giving environment E, you could place X into E and see how much reward X gets; likewise for Y. If X gets more reward, you can consider that as evidence of X being more intelligent.
That's an odd definition of intelligence. By that definition, a bird is more "intelligent" than a human at the task of opening a nut. Seems like "fitness" would be a much more appropriate term.
It seems especially strange to consider this work in the field of general intelligence. Nothing about what you just described is general. By this definition, a chess bot is much more intelligent than the average person. I don't think we'd say a chess bot has general intelligence.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago> Nothing about what you just described is general. But once you start integrating over many environments, it seems to make more sense, and the "generality" would be with respect to the set of environments being considered.
- rapnie 7y agoYou'd be correct if the electorate held only one voter: the chessboard environment. But in any other environment the chess bot would fail miserably, no votes gained, whereas a future AGI would score well 'across the board' in many/most environments, win the election.
- NateEag 7y agoI think the idea is that you would have many environments and each one is a voter. If an AGI candidate wins the board game vote but no others (the hunter-gathering vote, the walking and crawling vote, the "publish or perish" vote, etc), it will be trounced by something that is not quite so good at board games but is more flexible and adaptable - i.e., general. I'm an AGI skeptic myself, but I do think that's the best attempt at a formalism for ranking AGI attempts that I've seen so far (disclaimer: as a skeptic I haven't exactly done a deep dive into the field).