On potential cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11023-012-9299-6Animals, including humans, are usually judged on what they could become, rather than what they are. Many physical and cognitive abilities in the ‘animal kingdom’ are only acquired (to a given degree) when the subject reaches a certain stage of development, which can be accelerated or spoilt depending on how the environment, training or education is. The term ‘potential ability’ usually refers to how quick and likely the process of attaining the ability is. In principle, things should not be different for the ‘machine kingdom’. While machines can be characterised by a set of cognitive abilities, and measuring them is already a big challenge, known as ‘universal psychometrics’, a more informative, and yet more challenging, goal would be to also determine the potential cognitive abilities of a machine. In this paper we investigate the notion of potential cognitive ability for machines, focussing especially on universality and intelligence. We consider several machine characterisations (non-interactive and interactive) and give definitions for each case, considering permanent and temporal potentials. From these definitions, we analyse the relation between some potential abilities, we bring out the dependency on the environment distribution and we suggest some ideas about how potential abilities can be measured. Finally, we also analyse the potential of environments at different levels and briefly discuss whether machines should be designed to be intelligent or potentially intelligent.We thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments, which have helped to significantly improve this paper. This work was supported by the MEC-MINECO projects CONSOLIDER-INGENIO CSD2007-00022 and TIN 2010-21062-C02-02, GVA project PROMETEO/2008/051, the COST - European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research IC0801 AT. Finally, we thank three pioneers ahead of their time(s). We thank Ray Solomonoff (1926-2009) and Chris Wallace (1933-2004) for all that they taught us, directly and indirectly. And, in his centenary year, we thank Alan Turing (1912-1954), with whom it perhaps all began.Hernández-Orallo, J.; Dowe, DL. (2013). On potential cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom. Minds and Machines. 23(2):179-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-012-9299-6S179210232Amari, S., Fujita, N., Shinomoto, S. (1992). Four types of learning curves. Neural Computation 4(4), 605–618.Aristotle (Translation, Introduction, and Commentary by Ross, W.D.) (1924). Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Barmpalias, G. & Dowe, D. L. (2012). Universality probability of a prefix-free machine. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society A [Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences] (Phil Trans A), Theme Issue ‘The foundations of computation, physics and mentality: The Turing legacy’ compiled and edited by Barry Cooper and Samson Abramsky, 370, pp 3488–3511.Chaitin, G. J. (1966). On the length of programs for computing finite sequences. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 13, 547–569.Chaitin, G. J. (1975). A theory of program size formally identical to information theory. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 22(3), 329–340.Dowe, D. L. (2008, September). Foreword re C. S. Wallace. Computer Journal, 51(5):523–560, Christopher Stewart WALLACE (1933–2004) memorial special issue.Dowe, D. L. (2011). MML, hybrid Bayesian network graphical models, statistical consistency, invariance and uniqueness. In: P. S. Bandyopadhyay, M. R. Forster (Eds), Handbook of the philosophy of science—Volume 7: Philosophy of statistics (pp. 901–982). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Dowe, D. L. & Hajek, A. R. (1997a). A computational extension to the turing test. Technical report #97/322, Dept Computer Science, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 9 pp, http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/publications/1997/tr-cs97-322-abs.html .Dowe, D. L. & Hajek, A. R. (1997b, September). A computational extension to the Turing Test. in Proceedings of the 4th conference of the Australasian Cognitive Science Society, University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia, 9 pp.Dowe, D. L. & Hajek, A. R. (1998, February). A non-behavioural, computational extension to the Turing Test. In: International conference on computational intelligence and multimedia applications (ICCIMA’98), Gippsland, Australia, pp 101–106.Dowe, D. L., Hernández-Orallo, J. (2012). IQ tests are not for machines, yet. Intelligence, 40(2), 77–81.Gallistel, C. R., Fairhurst, S., & Balsam, P. (2004). The learning curve: Implications of a quantitative analysis. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(36), 13124–13131.Gardner, M. (1970). Mathematical games: The fantastic combinations of John Conway’s new solitaire game “life”. Scientific American, 223(4), 120–123.Goertzel, B. & Bugaj, S. V. (2009). AGI preschool: A framework for evaluating early-stage human-like AGIs. In Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial general intelligence (AGI-09), pp 31–36.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2000a). Beyond the Turing Test. Journal of Logic, Language & Information, 9(4), 447–466.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2000b). On the computational measurement of intelligence factors. In A. Meystel (Ed), Performance metrics for intelligent systems workshop (pp 1–8). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2010). On evaluating agent performance in a fixed period of time. In M. Hutter et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd international conference on artificial general intelligence (pp. 25–30). New York: Atlantis Press.Hernández-Orallo, J., & Dowe, D. L. (2010). Measuring universal intelligence: Towards an anytime intelligence test. Artificial Intelligence, 174(18), 1508–1539.Hernández-Orallo, J. & Dowe, D. L. (2011, April). Mammals, machines and mind games. Who’s the smartest?. The conversation, http://theconversation.edu.au/mammals-machines-and-mind-games-whos-the-smartest-566 .Hernández-Orallo J., Dowe D. L., España-Cubillo S., Hernández-Lloreda M. V., & Insa-Cabrera J. (2011). On more realistic environment distributions for defining, evaluating and developing intelligence. In: J. Schmidhuber, K. R. Thórisson, & M. Looks (Eds.), Artificial general intelligence 2011, volume 6830, LNAI series, pp. 82–91. New York: Springer.Hernández-Orallo, J., Dowe, D. L., & Hernández-Lloreda, M. V. (2012a, March). Measuring cognitive abilities of machines, humans and non-human animals in a unified way: towards universal psychometrics. Technical report 2012/267, Faculty of Information Technology, Clayton School of I.T., Monash University, Australia.Hernández-Orallo, J., Insa, J., Dowe, D. L., & Hibbard, B. (2012b). Turing tests with Turing machines. In A. Voronkov (Ed.), The Alan Turing centenary conference, Turing-100, Manchester, volume 10 of EPiC Series, pp 140–156.Hernández-Orallo, J., & Minaya-Collado, N. (1998). A formal definition of intelligence based on an intensional variant of Kolmogorov complexity. In Proceedings of the international symposium of engineering of intelligent systems (EIS’98) (pp 146–163). Switzerland: ICSC Press.Herrmann, E., Call, J., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science, 317(5843), 1360–1366.Herrmann, E., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., Call, J., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2010). The structure of individual differences in the cognitive abilities of children and chimpanzees. Psychological Science, 21(1), 102–110.Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of educational psychology, 57(5), 253.Hutter, M. (2005). Universal artificial intelligence: Sequential decisions based on algorithmic probability. New York: Springer.Insa-Cabrera, J., Dowe, D. L., España, S., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., & Hernández-Orallo, J. (2011a). Comparing humans and AI agents. In AGI: 4th conference on artificial general intelligence—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 6830, pp 122–132. Springer, New York.Insa-Cabrera, J., Dowe, D. L., & Hernández-Orallo, J. (2011b). Evaluating a reinforcement learning algorithm with a general intelligence test. In CAEPIA—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 7023, pages 1–11. Springer, New York.Kearns, M. & Singh, S. (2002). Near-optimal reinforcement learning in polynomial time. Machine Learning, 49(2), 209–232.Kolmogorov, A. N. (1965). Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information. Problems of Information Transmission, 1, 4–7.Legg, S. (2008, June). Machine super intelligence. Department of Informatics, University of Lugano.Legg, S. & Hutter, M. (2007). Universal intelligence: A definition of machine intelligence. Minds and Machines, 17(4), 391–444.Legg, S., & Veness, J. (2012). An approximation of the universal intelligence measure. In Proceedings of Solomonoff 85th memorial conference. New York: Springer.Levin, L. A. (1973). Universal sequential search problems. Problems of Information Transmission, 9(3), 265–266.Li, M., Vitányi, P. (2008). An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications (3rd ed). New York: Springer.Little, V. L., & Bailey, K. G. (1972). Potential intelligence or intelligence test potential? A question of empirical validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39(1), 168.Mahoney, M. V. (1999). Text compression as a test for artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI (pp. 486–502). New Jersey: Wiley.Mahrer, A. R. (1958). Potential intelligence: A learning theory approach to description and clinical implication. The Journal of General Psychology, 59(1), 59–71.Oppy, G., & Dowe, D. L. (2011). The Turing Test. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/ .Orseau, L. & Ring, M. (2011). Self-modification and mortality in artificial agents. In AGI: 4th conference on artificial general intelligence—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 6830, pages 1–10. Springer, New York.Ring, M. & Orseau, L. (2011). Delusion, survival, and intelligent agents. In AGI: 4th conference on artificial general intelligence—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 6830, pp. 11–20. Springer, New York.Schaeffer, J., Burch, N., Bjornsson, Y., Kishimoto, A., Muller, M., Lake, R., et al. (2007). Checkers is solved. Science, 317(5844), 1518.Solomonoff, R. J. (1962). Training sequences for mechanized induction. In M. Yovits, G. Jacobi, & G. Goldsteins (Eds.), Self-Organizing Systems, 7, 425–434.Solomonoff, R. J. (1964). A formal theory of inductive inference. Information and Control, 7(1–22), 224–254.Solomonoff, R. J. (1967). Inductive inference research: Status, Spring 1967. RTB 154, Rockford Research, Inc., 140 1/2 Mt. Auburn St., Cambridge, Mass. 02138, July 1967.Solomonoff, R. J. (1978). Complexity-based induction systems: comparisons and convergence theorems. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 24(4), 422–432.Solomonoff, R. J. (1984). Perfect training sequences and the costs of corruption—A progress report on induction inference research. Oxbridge research.Solomonoff, R. J. (1985). The time scale of artificial intelligence: Reflections on social effects. Human Systems Management, 5, 149–153.Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge: The MIT press.Thorp, T. R., & Mahrer, A. R. (1959). Predicting potential intelligence. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15(3), 286–288.Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433–460.Veness, J., Ng, K. S., Hutter, M., & Silver, D. (2011). A Monte Carlo AIXI approximation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, JAIR, 40, 95–142.Wallace, C. S. (2005). Statistical and inductive inference by minimum message length. New York: Springer.Wallace, C. S., & Boulton, D. M. (1968). An information measure for classification. Computer Journal, 11, 185–194.Wallace, C. S., & Dowe, D. L. (1999a). Minimum message length and Kolmogorov complexity. Computer Journal 42(4), 270–283.Wallace, C. S., & Dowe, D. L. (1999b). Refinements of MDL and MML coding. Computer Journal, 42(4), 330–337.Woergoetter, F., & Porr, B. (2008). Reinforcement learning. Scholarpedia, 3(3), 1448.Zvonkin, A. K., & Levin, L. A. (1970). The complexity of finite objects and the development of the concepts of information and randomness by means of the theory of algorithms. Russian Mathematical Surveys, 25, 83–124

Logical Reduction of Metarules

International audienceMany forms of inductive logic programming (ILP) use metarules, second-order Horn clauses, to define the structure of learnable programs and thus the hypothesis space. Deciding which metarules to use for a given learning task is a major open problem and is a trade-off between efficiency and expressivity: the hypothesis space grows given more metarules, so we wish to use fewer metarules, but if we use too few metarules then we lose expressivity. In this paper, we study whether fragments of metarules can be logically reduced to minimal finite subsets. We consider two traditional forms of logical reduction: subsumption and entailment. We also consider a new reduction technique called derivation reduction, which is based on SLD-resolution. We compute reduced sets of metarules for fragments relevant to ILP and theoretically show whether these reduced sets are reductions for more general infinite fragments. We experimentally compare learning with reduced sets of metarules on three domains: Michalski trains, string transformations, and game rules. In general, derivation reduced sets of metarules outperform subsumption and entailment reduced sets, both in terms of predictive accuracies and learning times

Deep learning for video game playing

In this article, we review recent Deep Learning advances in the context of how they have been applied to play different types of video games such as first-person shooters, arcade games, and real-time strategy games. We analyze the unique requirements that different game genres pose to a deep learning system and highlight important open challenges in the context of applying these machine learning methods to video games, such as general game playing, dealing with extremely large decision spaces and sparse rewards

Plan Synthesis for Knowledge and Action Bases

We study plan synthesis for a variant of Knowledge and Action Bases (KABs), a rich, dynamic framework, where states are description logic (DL) knowledge bases (KBs) whose extensional part is manipulated by actions that possibly introduce new objects from an infinite domain. We show that plan existence over KABs is undecidable even under severe restrictions. We then focus on state-bounded KABs, a class for which plan existence is decidable, and provide sound and complete plan synthesis algorithms, which combine techniques based on standard planning, DL query answering, and finite-state abstraction. All results hold for any DL with decidable query answering. We finally show that for lightweight DLs, plan synthesis can be compiled into standard ADL planning

Allocation in Practice

How do we allocate scarcere sources? How do we fairly allocate costs? These are two pressing challenges facing society today. I discuss two recent projects at NICTA concerning resource and cost allocation. In the first, we have been working with FoodBank Local, a social startup working in collaboration with food bank charities around the world to optimise the logistics of collecting and distributing donated food. Before we can distribute this food, we must decide how to allocate it to different charities and food kitchens. This gives rise to a fair division problem with several new dimensions, rarely considered in the literature. In the second, we have been looking at cost allocation within the distribution network of a large multinational company. This also has several new dimensions rarely considered in the literature.Comment: To appear in Proc. of 37th edition of the German Conference on Artificial Intelligence (KI 2014), Springer LNC

Artificial intelligence and UK national security: Policy considerations

RUSI was commissioned by GCHQ to conduct an independent research study into the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for national security purposes. The aim of this project is to establish an independent evidence base to inform future policy development regarding national security uses of AI. The findings are based on in-depth consultation with stakeholders from across the UK national security community, law enforcement agencies, private sector companies, academic and legal experts, and civil society representatives. This was complemented by a targeted review of existing literature on the topic of AI and national security. The research has found that AI offers numerous opportunities for the UK national security community to improve efficiency and effectiveness of existing processes. AI methods can rapidly derive insights from large, disparate datasets and identify connections that would otherwise go unnoticed by human operators. However, in the context of national security and the powers given to UK intelligence agencies, use of AI could give rise to additional privacy and human rights considerations which would need to be assessed within the existing legal and regulatory framework. For this reason, enhanced policy and guidance is needed to ensure the privacy and human rights implications of national security uses of AI are reviewed on an ongoing basis as new analysis methods are applied to data