0
$\begingroup$

According to outdated mainstream psychology, human intelligence is equal to the IQ test result, which is the ability of a human to solve a complex task. The idea is, that human A is able to tackle a problem, while human B is not and so the measured intelligence is different. But there is an alternative technique available which can be used for determine machine intelligence as well. The instrument for doing so isn't the IQ test, but a stop watch. Which means, both humans are able to solve the task, but human A can do so faster. This is equal to a higher intelligence.

If we are converting this idea into the subject of artificial intelligence, than the fastest robot is automatically the brightest one. If the camera is able to perceive the objects with 100 fps, than the system is more powerful to a camera which is restricted to 20 frames per second. And if the robot hand can do 3 picks per seconds, it's better than a robot which can only provide 1 picks per second. Time is money, and time is intelligence. That's the basic idea.

Am i right?

slowdown.png

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think AI systems work on a little different foundation. Typically you would train a system, and once it's passed your accuracy threshold, you stop training it and publish your weights. This published collection of weights now becomes your "algorithm" - It's really just some distilled matrix math inferred by the data-set. The execution of this is must faster than training. In your scenario, we are assuming that it takes 300ms for a single pass on trained data. I think this is unlikely. $\endgroup$ – Zakk Diaz Jul 16 at 20:17
  • $\begingroup$ You could certainly create a system where the "Fastest solving" becomes the "most fit", but we are playing with the definition of what it means to be "most fit". Another factor to "intelligence" isn't speed but also complexity, which will increase processing time intrinsically. So we should be careful what we mean by "most intelligent" $\endgroup$ – Zakk Diaz Jul 16 at 20:18
  • $\begingroup$ I believe the concept of IQ is rather irrelevant, since your ability to do a certain exercise does not reflect your ability to do some other exercise. I know this comment is a bit off-topic into your question but still. $\endgroup$ – Miguel Saraiva Jul 16 at 20:39
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think speed is a suitable proxy for capability. $\endgroup$ – Oliver Mason Jul 17 at 9:09
1
$\begingroup$

both humans are able to solve the task, but human A can do so faster. This is equal to a higher intelligence.

No. I don't think this follows. As one example, of many, there are plenty of high achievers with dyslexia (Einstein amongst them) - if you had ask them to solve a problem which involved language they may well be out performed by the majority of the population.

With AI speed is probably down to how well the code is written and what its running on - little to do with the actual intelligence of the process. If we imagine two algorithms which have identical output and input but one performs the task quicker we would probably decide that algorithm was more fit for the purpose. Intelligence is about the capability to deal with problems (and variations on those) than the speed at which those are performed.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.