3 ms·
> requires no world knowledge, no understanding of language This is treating “intelligence” like some abstract, platonic thing divorced from reality. Whatever
by abtinf 2y ago
> requires no world knowledge, no understanding of language
This is treating “intelligence” like some abstract, platonic thing divorced from reality. Whatever else solving these puzzles is indicative of, it’s not intelligence.
- abtinf 2y agoFrom the abstract of the “ On the Measure of Intelligence” paper: > We then articulate a new formal definition of intelligence based on Algorithmic Information Theory, describing intelligence as skill-acquisition efficiency and highlighting the concepts of scope, generalization difficulty, priors, and experience. I’m afraid that definition forecloses the possibility of AGI. The immediate basic question is: why build skills at all?
- Phil_Latio 2y agoWhy does an AGI need to have any knowledge about our reality? The principle behind an AGI should work just as well on a made up world where those puzzles play a part in.
- abtinf 2y agoA concept that doesn’t relate to an aspect of reality, either directly or abstracted from basic concepts that directly relate, is meaningless and arbitrary. There is no way for intelligence to grasp it, let alone do something with it. To put it another way, a thing that solves puzzles without an understanding of reality is a calculator. When it solves a problem, it is the creator’s intelligence solving the problem, not its own.
- Phil_Latio 2y agoI agree that the puzzles alone are not enough, that's why I wrote "in a made up world where those puzzles play a part in". We are not looking for a superhuman, but for the (or a) mechanism of intelligence, which we can then transfer into a superhuman (into the real world). But the mechanism itself should work in an artifically made and very constrained world too.
- andoando 2y agoThese problems are spatial problems, they are not some outer wordly problems.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y agoActually ARC fit's my definition of animal intelligence - "degree of ability to use prior experience to predict future outcomes". Any useful definition of intelligence has to be totally general - to our brain experience is just patterns of neural activation. Our brain has no notion of certain inputs being from the the jungle and others from the blackboard or whatever.
- levocardia 2y agoThis argument is not very strong: is "physical strength" some abstract, platonic thing divorced from reality? Does a person's bench press, squat, deadlift, and overhead press capabilities have nothing to do with strength? Or instead, is there some underlying latent capability we call 'strength,' that is correlated with performance in a broad but constrained range of real-world tasks that humans encounter and solve, whose value is something we'd like to assess and, ideally, build machines that can surpass?