h a l f b a k e r y
The phrase 'crumpled heap' comes to mind.

meta:

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

 user: pass:
register,

# InQ

Intellect Quotient: An alternate means to measure intelligence
 (+4, -1) [vote for, against]

In the field of AI, this would be a way to measure progress.

IQ tests are useless for this. The simplest computer can get perfect scores on any IQ test but we know they're not even in the same realm of humans or even lower life forms when it comes to accumulating, processing and utilizing data. An ant can out walk, hunt, fight and survive a silicon based computer many times its size. It can smell food, plan a strategy of attack, kill and run the digestive system after eating it, that is after it's calculated how much to eat and how much to take back to the colony. All this with a brain not much bigger than the head of a pin.

An intellect quotient would measure an artificial brain's ability to perform particular tasks taking its size into account.

The purpose of this metric would be to reach milestones such as having a computer that does everything an ant's brain can do that's the same size as a ant's brain or smaller.

So you'd pick the animal: dog. Create a computer that does everything a dog's brain can do, something we haven't done yet I might add, but I'll guess we could. Then we calculate the size of the artificial system necessary to replicate that biological brain. In this case we might be talking "Dog:1,200 to 1 Intellect Quotient" in that the system would have to be 1,200 times the size of a dog's brain to do the same tasks. An ant? 800:1 intellect quotient.

We've been patting ourselves on the back with AI when we really should admit it's quite dumb compared to it's biological forebearers. This measurement would clarify the goals, which are to match and eventually surpass naturally occurring data processing systems on every level including size and energy requirements.

Pursuing AI from this direction might lead to some novel new ways to get the job done, and perhaps getting there incrementally, by being able to say "By going down this route, we upped our ant InQ to 400:1 would be the way to do it.

 — doctorremulac3, Nov 28 2015

Recognising artificial intelligence
[xaviergisz, Nov 30 2015]

 //I don't think its particularly important that an AI could pass itself off as a human, but it would be a good category.//

 Well, I think it would be the end game goal. An Intellect quotient of "Human:1:1"

 We hit that, it's a very different universe we live in.

 The main idea though is that approaching AI this way might get some heretofore unconsidered approaches looked into. Analog biochemical data processing vs electronic digital for instance.

 //Speed another one or some metric of watts per challenge//

I was wondering how to approach that. I believe, and I may be wrong, that biological data processors all use about the same amount of power per bit of data processed. I could be wrong, but there you go. That would be an area of study using this approach.
 — doctorremulac3, Nov 28 2015

 See? Even posing questions about parameters of what is intelligence gets the inquiry going.

Having a hallmark like this to act as a point of reference might be useful.
 — doctorremulac3, Nov 28 2015

 //The simplest computer can get perfect scores on any IQ test//

I actually think that's very unlikely, but if you have any evidence...
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 28 2015

 Well, assuming you have a database of information in that computer, it just searches it and gets the answer. It can also do things like calculate Pi to as long as you want to go where a human can't.

Point is, there are things modern computers are very good at. Running a complex system like an ant using the same power and space available as the biological computer currently doing the job, an ant's brain, isn't one of them.
 — doctorremulac3, Nov 28 2015

 // it just searches it and gets the answer// Only if that particular IQ test question is in its database. Have you ever sat an IQ test?

 For instance, I am not sure it would be a simple matter for a computer to look at a sequence of five shapes (triangles and squares, with or without different shading, numbers of dots etc) and come up with the next one in the sequence (eg, spot the fact that the number of dots is 1,2,4... times the number of corners in successive shapes).

My guess is that it would be almost impossible (at present) to build a computer that would score more than 50-70 on an IQ test, without extreme overfitting to the particular questions in a particular test.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 28 2015

 LOL, well, ok but that's not the point.

The point is that computers are stupid, which as you point out, is true. Ok, maybe stupider than I suggested but my whole contention is that they're dumb. This is a measurement that can be used to un-dumb them.
 — doctorremulac3, Nov 28 2015

The "dumb" computers we have at present tend to serve human agendas of one sort or another. Do we actually want computers to have their own agenda, which will inevitably conflict with ours sooner or later? If not, then why would we make it a research goal to mimic biological behaviour?
 — pertinax, Nov 29 2015

 To advance the human condition and continue down the path of evolution rather than de-evolution.

 Computers have no agenda and never will unless we put it into them. Life at its molecular level has programming: to survive and expand, to render order out of chaos. The programming at the molecular level of computers, and all inanimate objects, is to go the opposite direction, from order to chaos. A skyscraper is "programmed" to turn to dust, not make more skyscrapers.

 The consciousness that computers will achieve is when they meld with man. Unless there's an impediment to this that I'm unaware of, eventually our consciousness will be able to be transferred into "hard copy" like any other computer program. This is the most likely scenario of how life conquers death, by bypassing the limits of the biological consciousness host, the human body.

 This goal is so programmed into our collective psyche that all cultures, as far as I know, have the concept of heaven or eternal life. This is because the life drive is so strong it longs to continue. With technology, the melding of man and machine, this goal will be realized.

 What will we do with eternal life? Expand into the cosmos because watching re-runs of reality shows and looking at gifs of funny cats on the internet will get boring after the twenty millionth millennia or so.

 Anyway, that's where this is heading in my opinion. I know when it comes to boldly going into the future it's a little intimidating to contemplate but when has the future not been?

 The future belongs to those with the most life force, the most drive and determination. Always has been, always will be. Even when the body is cast aside for membership in the "Neuronet". "Eternalnet"? "Eternet"? "Outernet"? Naa.

The Neuronet. I like that.
 — doctorremulac3, Nov 29 2015

This is probably what Quinetic is going to called next year.
 — not_morrison_rm, Nov 29 2015

 Neuralnet? Neuropsphere? Galactic Neurosphere? Intergalactic Neurosphere?

 How about getting plane in there? "Trans Galactic Neural-plane"

 Neuralweb... Intergalactic Neural Web.

 Naa, it's gotta sound like someplace you'd want to visit. A happy place. Lots of fun, bring the kids. Ladies free, half off Wednesdays, casual Fridays, come as you are. Hmm.

Intergalactic Neural Continuum...mmmm nope.
 — doctorremulac3, Nov 30 2015

New Cortex sounds quite enjoyable as a destination.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 30 2015

 Neural Cortex maybe? Oh, I guess there's probably already one of those in the human brain.

 Does putting "Infinite" in there someplace make to sound like too much of a commitment? Eternal is right out, that's just sounding like a retirement home you'll never leave.

 Stars. Stars are nice. "Star-Net" "Stellernet" Eh.

Intersteller Neural Cortex. Ok, I should probably go do something more productive with my day than type random words together to see how catchy they can sound.
 — doctorremulac3, Nov 30 2015

 I thought of that. Too deathlike. Plus good luck changing the image of that place, it's pretty much ingrained in the public consciousness. Angels, everybody wearing sandals. At least in the west. Not sure what other heavens look like.

 "New Improved Heaven?" "I Can't Believe It's Heaven"?

Ok, that's my last dumb post for this idea.
 — doctorremulac3, Nov 30 2015

 I like Skynet. I think by the time these systems are ready people will have forgotten the movie.

 Although, maybe the free market will kick in and people will offer different brands of eternity.

 "Tired of slogging around the universe at the speed of light? Ask about Remulon's patented "Time Space Bypass" technology. Mention this subnet broadcast and get your first million years free!

Remulon TSB... just because you have an eternity in front of you doesn't mean you need to spend it on a data transferrence particle beam."
 — doctorremulac3, Nov 30 2015

Revelation Space series: I'll check it out.
 — doctorremulac3, Nov 30 2015

 Hmm. Infinite lifespans.

 Wonder if the "I'll put it off till tomorrow" problem that's a small foible of limited life folks would become a real problem with somebody who had forever to get the job done. Would time slow down for them? For instance, would a regular limited life entity see their actions as glacially slow? Supposedly a fly sees us as moving very slowly compared to how sped up their life is. If there was no rush, would your relative time constraint perception be so warped that you might take a thousand years to reach for a piece of toast for instance? Not that you'd eat toast, but you get the idea.

 Right now our psyche, our entire consciousness is designed to fit with the bodies we have now. There would need to be a fundamental different wiring to start living thousands or millions of years or beyond.

 And what about interaction with other entities? What would drive that? Currently we have sex and reproduction and the tending of the physical body to drive us together. (Helping each other survive with food, shelter etc) Would that be cut out of the equation? Would there be some kind of analog to biological interaction in the "Pan Galactic Ultranet" or whatever?

Clearly it would be a very different existence. I think it's fascinating stuff to contemplate.
 — doctorremulac3, Dec 01 2015

 [annotate]

back: main index