4 ms·
Errr no. His proposal is that intelligence is a process that maximizes the number of available future histories. Just capturing future histories is meaningless.
by jinfiesto 14y ago
Errr no. His proposal is that intelligence is a process that maximizes the number of available future histories. Just capturing future histories is meaningless. The example he gives of an upright rod clearly illustrates the difference. Really what he's saying is that intelligence seeks to maintain maximum possibilities for the future.
- wavesounds 14y agoHe just set a goal of keeping the potential energy maximized for the rod, just like a big blue set a goal of winning at chess 30 years ago, both by 'predicting the future'. I don't see anything new here except the phrase 'future histories' which is not even defined because it just means 'the future'. As soon as I saw it claiming it can win at the stock market I knew it was BS.
- svachalek 14y agoIt's not "predicting" the future, it's "maximizing" the number of potential futures. In chess, the more moves you have available the better you are doing, generally. But another measure (probably better although I'm not a chess expert) is how few moves your opponent has available. Strictly speaking it sounds like this strategy would emphasize keeping future moves available for both you and your opponent. This is a more idealistic future for many real-world situations but I'm not sure I'd call it the definition of "intelligence".
- klipt 14y agoYeah, seems to me their idea can be summarized as "in the absence of a specific goal, keep options open". Which is generally good advice, but only "in the absence of a specific goal".
- scotty79 14y agoI think that's what is different between machine and life. Machine always has specific goal. Life never has.