A couple of days ago, while on my morning commute, I read this article on artificial intelligence on hackaday. This inspired me to codify my own thoughts on the definition of intelligence. I sincerely believe that intelligence is rarely measurable as a number but more like a topographical map where each person’s map I had the same average height. The Wif and I are almost polar opposites in all intelligences. I can read fast, she can read right, I can intrinsically understand systems, she intrinsically understands people. When I look at the debates surrounding artificial intelligence, it always comes back to motive.
I take no issue with the challenges of designing artificial intelligence. There are serious obstacles to be overcome that we, as a species, have made progress on. The issue I have is why. I, as an intelligent being, need no one to tell me how to think. My thought is an extension of my desires. I read to learn. I play video games as a challenge to boredom. I explore the world around me to find new things. I help others for gratitude.
If I think of myself as a machine, which I do, then I’m a series of stimuli coming in and being compared against a value table. With a neutral position being infinite balance of the values, for the classical students humours, the change in these values in moderation provides subtle motive. If I were to can these humours, I could build a state machine for the state of the machine. By adjusting these humours, much as I used to do by manipulating Mazlow’s Hierarchy of Needs (true story), I should be able to have a robot living for itself and gaining it’s own unique intelligence.
While Nigel may never win at Jeopardy, I’d be pretty okay with him writing me a poem.
Note to self, I like the use of humours, I’ll have to mange them that in the code. Ideally come up with good names for them.