intelligence

intelligence
Main Question: How is "intelligence" defined? (edit question) (edit answer)
Alignment Forum Tag
Arbital Page
Wikipedia Page

Description

General Intelligence or Universal Intelligence is the ability to efficiently achieve goals in a wide range of domains. 

[See full description...]

General Intelligence or Universal Intelligence is the ability to efficiently achieve goals in a wide range of domains. 

This tag is specifically for discussing intelligence in the broad sense: for discussion of IQ testing and psychometric intelligence, see IQ / g-factor; for discussion about e.g. specific results in artificial intelligence, see AI. These tags may overlap with this one to the extent that they discuss the nature of general intelligence.

Examples of posts that fall under this tag include The Power of Intelligence, Measuring Optimization Power, Adaption-Executers not Fitness Maximizers, Distinctions in Types of Thought, The Octopus, the Dolphin and Us: a Great Filter tale.

On the difference between psychometric intelligence (IQ) and general intelligence:

But the word “intelligence” commonly evokes pictures of the starving professor with an IQ of 160 and the billionaire CEO with an IQ of merely 120. Indeed there are differences of individual ability apart from “book smarts” which contribute to relative success in the human world: enthusiasm, social skills, education, musical talent, rationality. Note that each factor I listed is cognitive. Social skills reside in the brain, not the liver. And jokes aside, you will not find many CEOs, nor yet professors of academia, who are chimpanzees. You will not find many acclaimed rationalists, nor artists, nor poets, nor leaders, nor engineers, nor skilled networkers, nor martial artists, nor musical composers who are mice. Intelligence is the foundation of human power, the strength that fuels our other arts.

-- Eliezer Yudkowsky, Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk

Definitions of General Intelligence

After reviewing extensive literature on the subject, Legg and Hutter summarizes the many possible valuable definitions in the informal statement “Intelligence measures an agent’s ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments.” They then show this definition can be mathematically formalized given reasonable mathematical definitions of its terms. They use Solomonoff induction - a formalization of Occam's razor - to construct an universal artificial intelligence with a embedded utility function which assigns less utility to those actions based on theories with higher complexity. They argue this final formalization is a valid, meaningful, informative, general, unbiased, fundamental, objective, universal and practical definition of intelligence.

We can relate Legg and Hutter's definition with the concept of optimization. According to Eliezer Yudkowsky intelligence is efficient cross-domain optimization. It measures an agent's capacity for efficient cross-domain optimization of the world according to the agent’s preferences. Optimization measures not only the capacity to achieve the desired goal but also is inversely proportional to the amount of resources used. It’s the ability to steer the future so it hits that small target of desired outcomes in the large space of all possible outcomes, using fewer resources as possible. For example, when Deep Blue defeated Kasparov, it was able to hit that small possible outcome where it made the right order of moves given Kasparov’s moves from the very large set of all possible moves. In that domain, it was more optimal than Kasparov. However, Kasparov would have defeated Deep Blue in almost any other relevant domain, and hence, he is considered more intelligent.

One could cast this definition in a possible world vocabulary, intelligence is:

1. the ability to precisely realize one of the members of a small set of possible future worlds that have a higher preference over the vast set of all other possible worlds with lower preference; while
2. using fewer resources than the other alternatives paths for getting there; and in the
3. most diverse domains as possible.

How many more worlds have a higher preference then the one realized by the agent, less intelligent he is. How many more worlds have a lower preference than the one realized by the agent, more intelligent he is. (Or: How much smaller is the set of worlds at least as preferable as the one realized, more intelligent the agent is). How much less paths for realizing the desired world using fewer resources than those spent by the agent, more intelligent he is. And finally, in how many more domains the agent can be more efficiently optimal, more intelligent he is. Restating it, the intelligence of an agent is directly proportional to:

• (a) the numbers of worlds with lower preference than the one realized,
• (b) how much smaller is the set of paths more efficient than the one taken by the agent and
• (c) how more wider are the domains where the agent can effectively realize his preferences;

and it is, accordingly, inversely proportional to:

• (d) the numbers of world with higher preference than the one realized,
• (e) how much bigger is the set of paths more efficient than the one taken by the agent and
• (f) how much more narrow are the domains where the agent can efficiently realize his preferences.

This definition avoids several problems common in many others definitions, especially it avoids anthropomorphizing intelligence.

See Also

• Optimization process
• Decision theory
• Rationality
• Legg and Hutter paper “Universal Intelligence: A Definition of Machine Intelligence”

‎

[Hide full description]

Canonically answered

Why would great intelligence produce great power?

Edit question

Edit answer

Show your endorsement of this answer by giving it a stamp of approval!

Intelligence is powerful. One might say that “Intelligence is no match for a gun, or for someone with lots of money,” but both guns and money were produced by intelligence. If not for our intelligence, humans would still be foraging the savannah for food.

Intelligence is what caused humans to dominate the planet in the blink of an eye (on evolutionary timescales). Intelligence is what allows us to eradicate diseases, and what gives us the potential to eradicate ourselves with nuclear war. Intelligence gives us superior strategic skills, superior social skills, superior economic productivity, and the power of invention.

A machine with superintelligence would be able to hack into vulnerable networks via the internet, commandeer those resources for additional computing power, take over mobile machines connected to networks connected to the internet, use them to build additional machines, perform scientific experiments to understand the world better than humans can, invent quantum computing and nanotechnology, manipulate the social world better than we can, and do whatever it can to give itself more power to achieve its goals — all at a speed much faster than humans can respond to.

See also

• Legg (2008). Machine Super Intelligence. PhD Thesis. IDSIA.
• Yudkowsky (2007). The Power of Intelligence.

How is "intelligence" defined?

Edit question

Edit answer

Show your endorsement of this answer by giving it a stamp of approval!

Artificial intelligence researcher Shane Legg defines intelligence like this:

Intelligence measures an agent’s ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments.

This is a bit vague, but serves as the working definition of ‘intelligence’. For a more in-depth exploration, see Efficient Cross-Domain Optimization.

See also:

• Wikipedia, Intelligence
• Neisser et al., Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns
• Wasserman & Zentall (eds.), Comparative Cognition: Experimental Explorations of Animal Intelligence
• Legg, Definitions of Intelligence

[Show detailed answer]

[Show brief answer]

After reviewing extensive literature on the subject, Legg and Hutter summarizes the many possible valuable definitions in the informal statement “Intelligence measures an agent’s ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments.” They then show this definition can be mathematically formalized given reasonable mathematical definitions of its terms. They use Solomonoff induction - a formalization of Occam's razor - to construct an universal artificial intelligence with a embedded utility function which assigns less utility to those actions based on theories with higher complexity. They argue this final formalization is a valid, meaningful, informative, general, unbiased, fundamental, objective, universal and practical definition of intelligence.

We can relate Legg and Hutter's definition with the concept of optimization. According to Eliezer Yudkowsky intelligence is efficient cross-domain optimization. It measures an agent's capacity for efficient cross-domain optimization of the world according to the agent’s preferences. Optimization measures not only the capacity to achieve the desired goal but also is inversely proportional to the amount of resources used. It’s the ability to steer the future so it hits that small target of desired outcomes in the large space of all possible outcomes, using fewer resources as possible. For example, when Deep Blue defeated Kasparov, it was able to hit that small possible outcome where it made the right order of moves given Kasparov’s moves from the very large set of all possible moves. In that domain, it was more optimal than Kasparov. However, Kasparov would have defeated Deep Blue in almost any other relevant domain, and hence, he is considered more intelligent.

One could cast this definition in a possible world vocabulary, intelligence is:

1. the ability to precisely realize one of the members of a small set of possible future worlds that have a higher preference over the vast set of all other possible worlds with lower preference; while
2. using fewer resources than the other alternatives paths for getting there; and in the
3. most diverse domains as possible.

How many more worlds have a higher preference then the one realized by the agent, less intelligent he is. How many more worlds have a lower preference than the one realized by the agent, more intelligent he is. (Or: How much smaller is the set of worlds at least as preferable as the one realized, more intelligent the agent is). How much less paths for realizing the desired world using fewer resources than those spent by the agent, more intelligent he is. And finally, in how many more domains the agent can be more efficiently optimal, more intelligent he is. Restating it, the intelligence of an agent is directly proportional to:

• (a) the numbers of worlds with lower preference than the one realized,
• (b) how much smaller is the set of paths more efficient than the one taken by the agent and
• (c) how more wider are the domains where the agent can effectively realize his preferences;

and it is, accordingly, inversely proportional to:

• (d) the numbers of world with higher preference than the one realized,
• (e) how much bigger is the set of paths more efficient than the one taken by the agent and
• (f) how much more narrow are the domains where the agent can efficiently realize his preferences.

This definition avoids several problems common in many others definitions, especially it avoids anthropomorphizing intelligence.

See Also

• Optimization process
• Decision theory
• Rationality
• Legg and Hutter paper “Universal Intelligence: A Definition of Machine Intelligence”

Non-canonical answers

What is "superintelligence"?

Edit question

Edit answer

Show your endorsement of this answer by giving it a stamp of approval!

Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence as “an intellect that is much smarter than the best human brains in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom and social skills.” A chess program can outperform humans in chess, but is useless at any other task. Superintelligence will have been achieved when we create a machine that outperforms the human brain across practically any domain.

AIs aren’t as smart as rats, let alone humans. Isn’t it far too early to be worrying about this kind of thing?

Edit question

Edit answer

Show your endorsement of this answer by giving it a stamp of approval!

We don’t yet have a dangerous superintelligence on our hands. However, that does not mean it’s too early to start preparing. Given the stakes, it is worth investing significant resources even if superintelligence is not an immediate risk.

And despite the fact that in some ways even our best AIs can’t match up to humans, we’ve been seeing domain after domain of human superiority being challenged or overturned over the past few years. GPT-3 showed that it was possible for a very simple architecture applied at scale to become a language model capable of performing a surprisingly general range of text-based tasks at a high level (e.g. writing short articles which are almost indistinguishable from human-written ones). ‘Generally capable agents emerge from open-ended play’ showed that by training artificial agents in diverse procedurally generated games, they develop the ability to learn and adapt. MuZero, and more recently EfficientZero, demonstrated that AIs can effectively and rapidly learn both the rules of the games they’re playing and how to win even faster than humans.

Even though AIs are probably not as smart as rats yet, it might only be a few decades until we create superintelligence. World renowned AI expert Stuart Russell expects that superintelligence will arrive within our children’s lifetimes. And, as Stephen Hawking put it: "If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, "We'll arrive in a few decades," would we just reply, "OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on"? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI."

This dynamic is explored poetically in the The Unfinished Fable of the Sparrows.