Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!columbia!cs!mkamer
From: mkamer@cs.columbia.edu (Matthew Kamerman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Adaptive vs. intelligent (was Re: "Intelligence")
Keywords: adaptation, self-organization, initiative
Message-ID: <245@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: 14 Jun 89 01:03:06 GMT
References: <6605@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> <1319@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> <1398@lzfme.att.com> <13493@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU>
Reply-To: mkamer@cs.columbia.edu (Matthew Kamerman)
Followup-To: comp.ai
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
Lines: 64


It is intriguing to observe evolved intelligences discussing (albeit 
sometimes tangentially) what should be considered intelligent behavior 
in their tools.  With regard to tools one would hope that definitions would
have something to do with the goals that "artificially intelligent" systems
are supposed to fulfill for their creators.  Perhaps before arguing the
merits of the Turing Test we might work towards a consensus on different 
groups of design goals (evolved intelligence simulators, friendly
interfaces, data base searchers, goal-constraint resolvers, etc.).  If such
a consensus can be reached then fruitful discussions of HOW WELL system "A"
satisfies (can theoretically satisfy, etc.) the requirements of a class "B"
AI system might emerge.

With regard to evolved intelligence one might again consider goals (albeit 
this time as a cognitive "crutch").  The sole "goal" of an evolved system
is increasing its "inclusive fitness", the sum over (space, time, and
systems)  of the product of each system and its degree of similarity to the
evolved system.  To this end evolved systems exhibit locally counter-
entropic behaviors which will be called actions.  A possible definition of 
evolved intelligence might be the degree to which energy invested in
internal rearrangements which have no significant direct effect on the 
system's gross physical structure increases inclusive fitness.

More directly, might evolved intelligence be defined as the ability to 
decide amongst actions more effectively (hence forth effectiveness will be 
understood to refer to inclusive fitness) than by unbiased random
selection?  Note that processing time is often a relevant factor.  A rapid 
approximation can be far more effective than a tedious accuracy.  Also, 
intelligence in terms of the marginal value of energy invested in thinking
may vary from one class of problems to another.  Essential to measuring an
evolved system's intelligence is an understanding of the types of problems 
relevant to its survival.

In addition to defining and measuring intelligence it might also be useful
to discover contributing factors and quantify their relationship to a given
system's intelligence.  Some factors might be speed, freedom from noise,
breadth in terms of the number of concurrent threads at the point at which
the marginal value of an additional thread drops to zero (Yes, I'm still 
referring to evolved intelligences!), depth in terms of the maximum number
of steps in a given thread before the marginal value of an additional step
drops to zero, and experience.

I'm at a loss for a good, functional definition of experience (any ideas?),
but here are some possible contributing factors.  Experience supposes
either a memory (a low noise mechanism, functionally different from the main
processor, from which threads can be resumed or rapidly, in terms of
original creation times, recreated), or a very low noise processor able to
hold a large number of concurrent threads.  In either, the ability to
amortize thinking costs by sharing information amongst threads past,
present, and future is a significant contributing factor.  Thinking
invested in such "meta"-tasks as indexing, developing indexing heuristics
(learning how to learn), processor resource allocation (attention), and
developing processor resource allocation heuristics (learning to
prioritize), might be the most effective thinking although it results in 
no direct overt activity whatsoever.  Further, if a memory is used, speed,
freedom from noise, parallel access, capacity, modifiability, and other
device related considerations might be added to the contributing factors.  

This group seems dedicated to issues more philosophical than searching
for quantifiable functional definitions related to a system's reason for
being.  So, I'd welcome the opportunity for an E-Mail dialogue with any
moved to enlarge upon, detract from, modify or otherwise discuss  ;-)
these (ideas?)..  E-Mail posted after June 21 should be directed to 
mkamer@ibm.com as it may be weeks before I log on to this account again.