Re: Happy New Year, CAP!

JGCASEY wrote: 
I don't buy the "more processing power" paradigm.
If you can describe exactly how the scaled-up
version will emerge into the desired behavior
then you could simply describe the scaled-up
version in the first place.


Maybe, maybe not.  I don't see it as a case of "scaling
up" so much as "adding to" what is already there and
this would require larger and more powerful processing.

If intelligence is a set of skills higher intelligence
is simply more sophisticated and complex skills. Even
IQ tests now recognize that intelligence in one area
(skills in one area) do not mean the person has equal
skills in another area.

The "what are you capable of?" definition is the common-sense definition of intelligence. In this sense Word 2003 is more intelligent than Word 2000 because it has more features (skills).

I believe we need a change of terminology. What we are seeking isn't a collection of greater and greater specific skills but a system for acquiring and performing them. A goal-oriented, learning, decision making system capable of achieving greater levels of skills in an optimal fashion. This "true AI" definition refers to what should be properly called a coginitive system.

We can demonstrate an electronic spread *** with 64K
memory but modern spreadsheets have more skills added
which require more memory and processing power. The
old skills are still there. We can add numbers with
a hand calculator or a Pentium driven PC the result
is the same. But the Pentium driven PC can do more.

We can add features to Excel ad infinitum making it more "intelligent" by your definition but it will never become a cognitive system without fundamental changes.

-- Risujin
.