Though there are elegant and still practical specifications for intelligent behavior, the most intelligent agent that runs on some fixed hardware has completely unintelligible cognitive structures and in fact its source code is indistinguishable from white noise.
What does “most intelligent agent” mean?
Don’t you think we’d also need to specify “for a fixed (basket of) tasks”?
Are the I/O channels fixed along with the hardware?
I’m not sure how much the goal matters—probably the details depend on the utility function you want to optimize. I think you can do about as well as possible by carving out a utility function module and designing the rest uniformly to pursue the objectives of that module. But perhaps this comes at a fairly significant cost (i.e. you’d need a somewhat larger computer to get the same performance if you insist on doing it this way).
...And yes, there does exist a computer program which is remarkably good at just chess and nothing else, but that’s not the kind of thing I’m talking about here.
Yes, the I/O channels should be fixed along with the hardware.
Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate and point out as relevant the fact that Legg-Hutter includes in it’s definition “for all environments (ie action:observation mappings)”. I can now say I agree with your “heresy” with a high credence for the cases where compute budgets are not ludicrously small relative to I/O scale, and the utility function is not trivial. I’m a bit weirded out by the environment space being conditional on a fixed hardware variable (namely, I/O) in this operationalization, but whathever.
What does “most intelligent agent” mean?
Don’t you think we’d also need to specify “for a fixed (basket of) tasks”?
Are the I/O channels fixed along with the hardware?
Perhaps Legg-Hutter intelligence.
I’m not sure how much the goal matters—probably the details depend on the utility function you want to optimize. I think you can do about as well as possible by carving out a utility function module and designing the rest uniformly to pursue the objectives of that module. But perhaps this comes at a fairly significant cost (i.e. you’d need a somewhat larger computer to get the same performance if you insist on doing it this way).
...And yes, there does exist a computer program which is remarkably good at just chess and nothing else, but that’s not the kind of thing I’m talking about here.
Yes, the I/O channels should be fixed along with the hardware.
Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate and point out as relevant the fact that Legg-Hutter includes in it’s definition “for all environments (ie action:observation mappings)”. I can now say I agree with your “heresy” with a high credence for the cases where compute budgets are not ludicrously small relative to I/O scale, and the utility function is not trivial. I’m a bit weirded out by the environment space being conditional on a fixed hardware variable (namely, I/O) in this operationalization, but whathever.