Re:Artificial general intelligence is here, and it's useless
by 7373737373 on Thursday May 23, 2019 @04:44PM
(#19995707)
Maybe more "by nature"? If it were not measurable, there would be no point in discussing it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Artificial general intelligence is here, and it's useless
by drdeca on Friday May 24, 2019 @02:21AM
(#19998959)
I’m not sure what you mean by “along something”? Do you just mean a standard by which to measure?
If you just mean that there needs to be a way of determining, in some cases, that one thing is “more intelligent” than another, then yes, that is necessary for “intelligence” to be a useful notion.
But we do have methods of doing that, so there is no problem there.
Note that the way we have of comparing intelligence needn’t be a linear order. It can be a partial order.
Re:Artificial general intelligence is here, and it's useless
by 7373737373 on Friday May 24, 2019 @05:50AM
(#19999969)
I agree, it's multidimensional.
If "general" truly meant general purpose, the measure might be how well the system arranges every possible (sequence of) combination(s) of matter and energy in space and time, while optimizing along any combination of these.
But that in itself is not a single objective, but a set of objectives, and not really a utility function.