Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cs.utexas.edu!berleant
From: berleant@cs.utexas.edu (Dan Berleant)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Limits of AI
Message-ID: <3876@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 88 21:58:54 GMT
References: <1651@ndsuvax.UUCP> <1666@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> <3802@cs.utexas.edu> <2413@cs.Buffalo.EDU> <3833@cs.utexas.edu> <2149@bucsb.UUCP>
Sender: news@cs.utexas.edu
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 57

In article <2149@bucsb.UUCP> dsm@bucsb.bu.edu (david miller) writes:
>In article <3833@cs.utexas.edu> berleant@cs.utexas.edu (Dan Berleant) writes:
>>footnote 1: A _reasonable_ definition of intelligence that _also_ 
>>works for the argument ... is this:
>>
>>Intelligence consists of 2 things, 1)the ability to convince the
>>average person that intelligence is being displayed (which I 
>>define to have the value of either true or false), and 2)the
>>ability to build intelligent machines. This definition makes
>>sense and avoids circularity.
>
>Two faults with this reasoning:
>1. Humans have not yet shown their ability to create intelligent
>machines, and
>2. If they did create something that apeared intelligent, who would 
>be the intelligent person to decide that it was intelligent, since we
>would still be trying to prove it ourselves..

I was hoping to avoid getting entangled in the question of 
defining intelligence, but...

To be more explicit, the following definition should be sufficient
for my argument that "if we can build a machine smarter than
we are, we can obtain a machine of infinite -- or at least
maximum possible -- intelligence."

I = C + C*A

I... intelligence
C... commonsense
A... ability (to build intelligent machines)

More specifically,

commonsense... the ability to pass the Turing test (or something like
               that, you get the idea). Allowable values are true and 
               false, that is, 0 or 1. Either the machine possesses
               intelligence (whatever its degree) or not.

Given this definition, if we can build a machine more intelligent
than we, we can have a machine whose intelligence is the theoretical
maximum value of intelligence.

>With this your theory on intelligence will not hold...

Yes it will!

>good try though... 

Thanks!

Someone (else) actually posted a valid objection (call it a refutation
if you want) to this conclusion... but other readers seem to have
ignored it...

Dan
berleant@cs.utexas.edu