A universal measure of intelligence(physorg.com)
physorg.com
A universal measure of intelligence
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-universal-intelligence.html
8 comments
Any new measure of intelligence is really just a new definition of intelligence.
The point you're making is biting and socially justified, but if you can accept that there is some measure of intelligence/performance (it's probably pretty damn high dimensional) at least so much as to help explain why an avocado can't do software engineering, then it's worth considering that each new measure helps to get us a more complete understanding thereof.
Furthermore, if it's popular enough (which it probably won't be) then it becomes ammunition against reemphasizing the multitudinous aspects of intelligence.
So while the snark is pretty well deserved in light of the way people treat IQ... I say it's worth applauding further research.
Furthermore, if it's popular enough (which it probably won't be) then it becomes ammunition against reemphasizing the multitudinous aspects of intelligence.
So while the snark is pretty well deserved in light of the way people treat IQ... I say it's worth applauding further research.
Just a measure of performance, for definite set of problems :)
Oh joy, another dubious article from physorg.com!
With the science sub-reddit's recent acquisition of real scientist moderators, I think we have finally reached the point where the science submissions on HN are less credible then those on reddit.
With the science sub-reddit's recent acquisition of real scientist moderators, I think we have finally reached the point where the science submissions on HN are less credible then those on reddit.
Article is really light on details.. But they mention that they are basing their intelligence metric on an organism's Kolmogorov complexity. It sounds to me like they are quantifying randomness, not intelligence.
I believe they meant the Kolmogorov complexity of the environment constituting the problem posed to the agent -- not the complexity of the agent itself. I don't have access to the paper, though. (Edit: the paper confirms this -- thanks, rubidium.)
Actual paper can be found at one of the authors websites: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~dld/Publications/HernandezOra....
Generally applicable hint: google the paper title. There's often a free pdf posted somewhere, usually at an author's webpage.
Generally applicable hint: google the paper title. There's often a free pdf posted somewhere, usually at an author's webpage.
[deleted]
I'm guessing they mean something like this: repeatedly pose a random reinforcement-learning problem and record the agent's score. The "IQ" is the Kolmogorov complexity of the problems at which the agent goes from usually acing it to usually bombing. If you pick a random program (as your random problem), its K-complexity is probably near the length of the program, so you don't need to be able to compute the (uncomputable) K-complexity to get a good estimate of the above score.
(Based on reading a few words before about Shane Legg's work in the same area, not yet published AFAIK. This is just a guess since there were very few details on that too.)
Update: from the paper (thanks to rubidium), on first skim, the above is basically right. They sum up weighted rewards instead of looking for a K-complexity that separates good from bad performance -- which I'd thought of but wasn't sure how to weight scores from problems of different complexity.
(Based on reading a few words before about Shane Legg's work in the same area, not yet published AFAIK. This is just a guess since there were very few details on that too.)
Update: from the paper (thanks to rubidium), on first skim, the above is basically right. They sum up weighted rewards instead of looking for a K-complexity that separates good from bad performance -- which I'd thought of but wasn't sure how to weight scores from problems of different complexity.
There can't be an algorithmic test for intelligence, other than by an equally or greater intelligent agent, because anything automated has answers static enough that you can just code specific solutions for them.
Read up on RSA encryption it might just blow your mind :)
PS: Creating a problem and measuring the solution need not be as hard as solving the problem without the "Key".
PS: Creating a problem and measuring the solution need not be as hard as solving the problem without the "Key".
I hate when articles like this talk about the research, but don't offer examples of what kind of questions they would ask. I'm much more interested in knowing what kinds of questions they would ask people and how I would do in said questionnaire.