TedTalks - A New Equation for Intelligence

I have to admit that I didnt understand the actual formula, lol...

But, the 'keeping the greatest amount of options open' makes ALL SORTS OF SENSE to me, lol...

This is how I talk....

I wont define you, as I allow for the greatest number of possibilities, as to not box myself in a corner...

In a recent thread, I was ask what the 'lines' were that one needs to be aware of to not cross....

There are lines in the sand, that shift, and are not carved out in stone... lol, duhr, cause they are in sand, :lol:

Anyway, please enjoy this video, and lets discuss....

Great topic. This video is yet another example of why TED talks are awesome.

Questions of how we define intelligence are among my favorite in science, and I look forward to seeing other people's thoughts as this discussion plays out. I have thought about this before and, myself, I find it a nice place to start by turning “what is intelligence?” on its head, by asking “what isn't intelligence?”. This video puts a whole new set of features into how I was able to explore both questions.

First exploration “What is intelligence” - “Intelligence seeks to maximize it's possible futures”.

Usually when considering the question, “what is intelligence?”, I like to use a ground up approach. So, the thing I think of first is bacteria. Now I'm not great with maths, but lets look at this in terms of F = T Δ S t (hope I got all the special characters right). There's a time factor, and a possible future factor. So, these little guys have been around for a long time, it looks like they're going to be around for a lot longer, and they are so diverse! They have lots of possible futures, being able to exist even in the vacuum of space. I recon they would have a pretty high intelligence score in this system. We might not often think of them as intelligent, because they are so simple and they don't have brains. My though on this is, okay, so their not intelligent in the same way we are, but they are able to use intelligent problem solving behavior to survive and thrive.

What isn't intelligence – my answer, well it would be easy to say, 'acting to minimize possible outcomes', but then I though, everything does to a certain extent, because we live in a series of Eco-systems. Specialization to take advantage of other things is natural, and not unintelligent. We exist because of our symbiotic relationships and could not have arisen without them. We are both specialized. In some ways this means we minimize our number possible futures, but in other ways, it makes a collection of other futures more accessible. Also, I though that often we go through processes of trial and error where we test something, find it doesn't present us with as great a number of choices as we want, and go back to try something else.

Okay so that was a big mouthful .

...*ahem*...

Sure, did you think otherwise?

We are engineering our own extinction...

And have been...

Maybe we will catch it... Maybe not...

Maybe we will be assimilated...

Combine this with Watson the Supercomputer, and it may happen in our lifetime...

Given how quick intelligence compounds...

“Why give a robot an order to obey orders—why aren't the original orders enough? Why command a robot not to do harm—wouldn't it be easier never to command it to do harm in the first place? Does the universe contain a mysterious force pulling entities toward malevolence, so that a positronic brain must be programmed to withstand it? Do intelligent beings inevitably develop an attitude problem? (…) Now that computers really have become smarter and more powerful, the anxiety has waned. Today's ubiquitous, networked computers have an unprecedented ability to do mischief should they ever go to the bad. But the only mayhem comes from unpredictable chaos or from human malice in the form of viruses. We no longer worry about electronic serial killers or subversive silicon cabals because we are beginning to appreciate that malevolence—like vision, motor coordination, and common sense—does not come free with computation but has to be programmed in. (…) Aggression, like every other part of human behavior we take for granted, is a challenging engineering problem!”
― Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works

Hmm yea good topic. I disagree with the leading quote by E. W. Dikstra, a sub is just a machine driven by people, but an AI would be operating outside the constraints of its code with an ability to write and run its own code, just like we can change the way we think or not think about something. As usual all just my opinions.

So yes, the underlying factor for intelligence could be a systems potential for complexity enough to plan for future action based on referencing past action and deciding new approaches. The nature of the animal then could be the data it can work with and the action it can act. Then we could call it intelligence because we cannot quantify the factors in its decision making process, otherwise we'd call it something else probably.

It's why I do not judge an animals intelligence based on its particular capacity to act, rather its actions are just representative of its [strike]limited[/strike] specific capacity to interact and act in an environment.

ittymisskitty, could that be instead simply 'growth' rather then intelligence, therefore his formula might not be specific enough perhaps!?

Adder wrote: Hmm yea good topic. I disagree with the leading quote by E. W. Dikstra, a sub is just a machine driven by people, but an AI would be operating outside the constraints of its code with an ability to write and run its own code, just like we can change the way we think or not think about something. As usual all just my opinions.

So yes, the underlying factor for intelligence could be a systems potential for complexity enough to plan for future action based on referencing past action and deciding new approaches. The nature of the animal then could be the data it can work with and the action it can act. Then we could call it intelligence because we cannot quantify the factors in its decision making process, otherwise we'd call it something else probably.

It's why I do not judge an animals intelligence based on its particular capacity to act, rather its actions are just representative of its [strike]limited[/strike] specific capacity to interact and act in an environment.

ittymisskitty, could that be instead simply 'growth' rather then intelligence, therefore his formula might not be specific enough perhaps!?

Growth vs intelligence. That's a great point Adder. I've read that all creatures in all systems seem to use a certain amount of trial and error, and there's a lot of literature which argues that trial and error is not intelligence. These papers argue instead that intelligence would be solving a problem by mental computation alone. Under this view, the formula explains more about how likely a creature is simply to survive, not how intelligent it is. However, I still see that there is room for a lot of arguments based on the idea that intelligence is environmentally subjective and that there are many different kinds of intelligence. Like I said, bacteria obviously aren't intelligent in the same way we are, but does this mean they are without intelligence? Maybe we need a different word.

I forgot about the robots, lol. Another interesting point, that we are participating in our own extinction. I think to a certain extent we are. But maybe we will catch it. Just got back from watching ROBOCOP which posed a lot of interesting questions along this line. Obviously in the world now, various military organizations are really interested in making war machines that are supposed to kill people, and these are undoubtedly going to be misused by someone along the lines as these kinds of machines become more common. We already know that even though we can program machines to simulate emotion, they can't actually feel. A machine isn't going to feel remorse if it kills someone like we do. In this way it can't be "moral" and its evolution for combat will inevitably lead to some really nasty situations. There's still that question though, does the machine "choose" this course of evolution? Is it "natural" evolution. Can machines even have "evolution" in the way us fleshies classically understand?

I think it requires a capacity to model a projected future based on prior experiences to produce some capacity for intention to be exerted from that reduced detailed model into a wider possibility reality, as this produces an investment in decision making which I equate to the emergence of responsibility and the concept of self... therefore intelligence. What defines a robots intention though I dont know, but if its free to change it then I think that is an important point in this discussion. From there things like remorse might be possible. Can someone put that into an equation for me? LOL

Adder wrote: Hmm yea good topic. I disagree with the leading quote by E. W. Dikstra, a sub is just a machine driven by people, but an AI would be operating outside the constraints of its code with an ability to write and run its own code, just like we can change the way we think or not think about something. As usual all just my opinions.

So then an airplane doesn't fly?

ittymisskitty wrote: There's still that question though, does the machine "choose" this course of evolution? Is it "natural" evolution. Can machines even have "evolution" in the way us fleshies classically understand?

Sure...

It improves itself and its situation with every generation...

Just as we do, as does everything that survives... For now... lol...

Jestor wrote:

Adder wrote: Hmm yea good topic. I disagree with the leading quote by E. W. Dikstra, a sub is just a machine driven by people, but an AI would be operating outside the constraints of its code with an ability to write and run its own code, just like we can change the way we think or not think about something. As usual all just my opinions.

So then an airplane doesn't fly?

:lol:

Nope, its flown. The aircraft experiences a pressure difference between the bottom and top surfaces of its wings greater then the weight of the aircraft, as it moves through the air, and as a result gets dragged upwards.
:side: