From: Gordon Worley (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jul 28 2001 - 13:10:08 MDT
At 2:00 PM -0400 7/28/01, Ben Goertzel wrote:
>What would be valuable, I think, is if we could agree upon a series of "IQ
>tests" for baby AI's, that we could use to objectively assess which ones
>were more promising and generally should have more attention paid to them.
>I also think it may be valuable to each AI developer to see how others'
>systems perform on the same tasks that his system is working on.
As I understand it, intelligence is something a process has or
doesn't. What you want us to test for is smartness. While knowing
how smart a process is, that doesn't really clarify if it is an
intelligence or not. I'm not totally sure what we could use to test
for signs of intelligence, but pattern recognition would be a good
means of testing for human level smartness. Yes, some things are
more intelligent than others (viz. I think we'll find that they are),
but we have to understand what intelligence really is and to see if
it's even there before we can measure it.
But, take all this with a healthy dose of IANACGS (I Am Not A
CoGnitive Scientist, not to be confused with I Am Not A Computer
Scientist, which is only half true for me ;-)).
-- Gordon Worley `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty http://www.rbisland.cx/ said, `it means just what I choose email@example.com it to mean--neither more nor less.' PGP: 0xBBD3B003 --Lewis Carroll
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT