SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
dyslexic writes "An Equation For Intelligence?
It is something like the philosopher's stone. A sort of E=mc2 that would put intelligence, and more particularly artificial intelligence, on a sound theoretical footing. But could it be as simple as this TED talk video (available on the link in addition to the article) suggests? The video explains some of this and provides examples of the principle in action where it is claimed to replicate a number of "human-like" intelligent behaviors including cooperation and tool use."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Grelb's Reminder:
Eighty percent of all people consider themselves to be above
average drivers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lubricus on Sunday February 23 2014, @03:55AM
OK, I watched your TedX talk.
It seems that the equation is really just a nice metaphor, a useful toy model of behavior.
As with all Ted talks, this one is overly simplified, and seems to maximize "coolness" over detail. this is the problem with Ted talks in general (What's the problem with TED talks) [youtube.com].
Here's his own concluding statement:
Allow me to make a parallel statement:
Is there an equation to live a good life?
OK, that was a little trite, but you get my point. Sure it might be food for thought, and might be true in the most general sense, but it's also hopelessly vague, and skips over all the most interesting detail: how to determine if something maximizes happiness.
Similarly, how one determines what "maximizes future freedom", or "avoid constraints" is the interesting, difficult part.
It seems like he wrote a machine=learning algorithm which attempts a simple optimization, maximizing future entropy, saw that it "worked" for various systems, and perhaps took a leap to conclude that this is the basis for all intelligence.
... sorry about the typos
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:15AM
"It seems like he wrote a machine=learning algorithm which attempts a simple optimization, maximizing future entropy, saw that it "worked" for various systems, and perhaps took a leap to conclude that this is the basis for all intelligence."
Yes, exactly. It seems his concept of what is intelligent is based on very human emotion or whim. His initial concept of deflecting asteroids in order to survive, and that being a core sign of intelligence, is entirely subjective, it could also be viewed as fear or desparation. Accepting death and watching the asteroid crash could be viewed as even higher form of thinking, if you wish. Similarly with his ball and stick balancing computer. Because humans think balancing a ball on a stick is clever, especially if we "think up" the idea given a ball and stick, he suggests the computer is smart doing it. Why hasn't it realised it is also futile and been a little more creative? And as for winning at the stock market, is this not just greed? He's just finding an equation to reenact some of our more flawed and self centered behaviour.
(Score: 1) by lx on Sunday February 23 2014, @06:12AM
While I sympathise with your core argument, I don't think that giving up and slacking off are signs of great intelligence. A lack of (perceived) options is highly correlated with anxiety and depression in most mammals including humans.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2014, @12:00PM
OK, but you're actually just proving my point. YOU don't think giving up is a sign of great intelligence. It's your opinion, others might disagree with you, therefore the premise for any equation built on that "belief" is as subjective as your particular view. Where does my view fit in? Or am I not intelligent....
As for the stressed mammals and depression. In sure that's true, but depression isn't a sign of reduced intelligence, and as far as I could see, there is no happiness quotient built in to the equation whatsoever. And again it's entirely subjective, many humans and mammals have few "options", sometimes from choice. Some religions or mental exercises, like zen, produce a perceived higher consciousness through nihilism our acceptance of just one option. The asteroid just is.