pnettlet@gara.une.oz.au (Philip Nettleton) (09/18/90)
Some new people have recently entered this debate so I thought it was time to repost the definition of an "Intelligent System" that we have developed so far. Pinning this debate back to its origins, we would be interested in hearing from anyone with a CONSTRUCTIVE critism of any part of the definition or any additions they feel are necessary. Remember, the underlying assumption is that to be human is not a necessary condition for being intelligent, this point has been flogged to death in recent postings. Let us produce a slightly more refined "general requirements" for the behaviour of an "intelligent system". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DEFINITION: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF AN INTELLIGENT SYSTEM. a) The system MUST be able to learn. This implies that the system MUST have a memory for learning to be maintained. Also learning comes in a number of varieties: i) It MUST be able to learn from its own experiences. These can be broken down into further criteria: 1) Learning through trial and error. 2) Learning through observation. 3) Learning through active deduction (see reasoning). ii) It SHOULD be able to learn by instruction, but this is not necessary. At the very least the system MUST have preprogrammed instincts. This is a boot strap for the developing intelligence. Without a starting point, the system cannot progress. b) The system MUST be autonomous. That is to say, it MUST be able to do things by itself (however may choose to accept aid). This can be disected as: i) The system MUST be able to effect its environment based on its own independent conclusions. ii) The system MUST be its own master and therefore doesn't require operator intervention. iii) The system MUST be motivated. It must have needs and requirements that can to be satisfied by its own actions. c) The system MUST be able to reason. That is to say, it must use some form of deductive reasoning, based on known facts and capable of producing insights (deductions) which later become known facts. d) The system MUST be able to develop self awareness. This is related to autonomy, reasoning and learning, but also embodies the need for external senses. Without external senses there is no way of appreciating the difference between "me" and "outside of me". Sensationations of pain and pleasure can provide motivation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DEFINITION OF TERMS. 1) A "system" CAN be comprised of multiple subsystems, each one of these could be a system in its own right (systems theory). 2) The "environment" in which the system exists MUST be external to the system, but that is as far as the definition of the environment goes (it could be computer generated). 3) The terms "learning", "reasoning" and "autonomy" are BEHAVIOURAL characteristics, further supported by our understanding (to date) of how they MIGHT work. 4) The term "self awareness" is based on learning, reasoning and autonomy, and is the state where the system is aware (has knowledge) of its own existence as separate from its environment. 5) "Intelligence" is a BEHAVIOURAL phenomena displayed by intelligent systems. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: If you step OUTSIDE the boundaries of the "definition of terms", your comments will simply be ignored, but feel free to add definitions or modify them if it will help clarify the "general requirements for an intelligent system". With Regards, Philip Nettleton, Tutor in Computer Science, Department of Maths, Stats, and Computing, The University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, 2351, AUSTRALIA.
forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis) (09/19/90)
I've continued to think about the current attempt to define "intelligent system". I feel like I am nit-picking. I have taken a stance in another conference which makes this minor point important to me right now. In article <3734@gara.une.oz.au> pnettlet@gara.une.oz.au (Philip Nettleton) writes: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DEFINITION: > GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF AN INTELLIGENT SYSTEM. > >a) The system MUST be able to learn. This implies that the > system MUST have a memory for learning to be maintained. Provided that the system is in a sufficiently rich environment I would concede this point. The problem arises when the system exists in a very poor environment. Is intellegence contextual? That is could a system be said to be intelligent when in one environment and not when in another? The second complaint is that once the system HAS learned can it still be said to be able to learn and is this necessary? After learning has taken place would the same response to the same stimulus take the system out of the realm of intelligence? Is intelligence the process or the results? --gary forbis@cac.washington.edu
sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/20/90)
In article <3734@gara.une.oz.au> pnettlet@gara.une.oz.au (Philip Nettleton) writes: >[it is] time to repost the definition of an "Intelligent System" that we have >developed so far. Pinning this debate back to its origins, we would >be interested in hearing from anyone with a CONSTRUCTIVE critism of >any part of the definition or any additions they feel are necessary. ... >Let us produce a slightly more refined "general requirements" for the >behaviour of an "intelligent system". O.K here goes, my general comments on the definition. In general I think it is very good. It seems to capture in a fairly clear and concise way most of my intuitive definition of intelligence. Now for some detail comments: > DEFINITION: >a) The system MUST be able to learn. This implies that the > system MUST have a memory for learning to be maintained. > ii) It SHOULD be able to learn by instruction, but this > is not necessary. At the very least the system MUST > have preprogrammed instincts. This is a boot strap > for the developing intelligence. Without a starting > point, the system cannot progress. I rather suspect that instruction will turn out to be a special case of learning from observation. Or it may be a composite of all three of the other modes of learning. I certainly doubt it is actually a distinct mode in its own right. However, mentioning it here is probably appropriate, since this is neither certain, nor entirely obvious. I think some sort of definition of 'instinct' might be in order below. It should probably be fairly general, so as to allow for a wide variety of implementations. [For instance, a chess program with prewired rules and basic moves (including opening books), could be said to have an instinctive knowledge of chess - if it then could expand it repertoire, and improve its game over time, I would say it was learning] >b) The system MUST be autonomous. ... > This can be disected as: > i) The system MUST be able to effect its environment > based on its own independent conclusions. Perhaps 'internal processes' might be better than 'independent conclusions'. As written this assumes a particular class of models of decision making. I am not sure that this may not be too restrictive. > > ii) The system MUST be its own master and therefore > doesn't require operator intervention. Maybe a little more precision about what it means to 'be its own master'. This could be construed so as to rule out any form of subordinate relationships, such as employees, servents, slaves &c. To say that human slaves are/were unintelligent is certainly not what you intended. [I suspect I agree with what you really mean, but it is not really clear here] > iii) The system MUST be motivated. It must have needs and > requirements that can to be satisfied by its own > actions. This is one that may not really be necessary. It could either be an emergent result of all the others, or it could be irrelevant to intelligence. I am sonewhat uncertain here - does anyone have any other comments. >c) The system MUST be able to reason. That is to say, it must > use some form of deductive reasoning, based on known facts > and capable of producing insights (deductions) which later > become known facts. Limiting reasoning to deductive reasoning is almost certainly too restrictive. Most existing intelligent animals, and humans in particular, use analogical reasoning much of the time (based on similarities and patterns rather than principles and derivations). Almost any sort of extrapolation should be included. Also, internal 'manipulation' of mental models of reality to estimate the effect of various actions is one of humanities most powerful forms of reasoning. We call it "imagination", and "mental rehersal" and "planning" and many other things. I do agree that reasoning is a critical component of intelligence, but the defintion of resoning needs to be general enough to cover most types used by humans in day-to-day activities. >d) The system MUST be able to develop self awareness. This is > related to autonomy, reasoning and learning, but also > embodies the need for external senses. Without external > senses there is no way of appreciating the difference between > "me" and "outside of me". Sensationations of pain and > pleasure can provide motivation. I have mentioned this before, but I believe self awareness comes from self- monitoring. That is from 'sensory' input about internal state as well as external environment. In humans, and probably most animals, this includes a kinesthetic sense, pain, hunger (and other bodily need sensitivities). Self-awareness would then develop from the observation that the internal senses follow different rules than the external ones. ----------------------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (Stanley Friesen)