Grand unified theory of intelligence found

[Black Rose]

http://www.insidescience.org/content/physicist-proposes-new-way-think-about-intelligence/987

Entropica's intelligent behavior emerges from the "physical process of trying to capture as many future histories as possible," said Wissner-Gross. Future histories represent the complete set of possible future outcomes available to a system at any given moment.

Wissner-Gross calls the concept at the center of the research "causal entropic forces." These forces are the motivation for intelligent behavior. They encourage a system to preserve as many future histories as possible. For example, in the cart-and-rod exercise, Entropica controls the cart to keep the rod upright. Allowing the rod to fall would drastically reduce the number of remaining future histories, or, in other words, lower the entropy of the cart-and-rod system. Keeping the rod upright maximizes the entropy. It maintains all future histories that can begin from that state, including those that require the cart to let the rod fall.

"The universe exists in the present state that it has right now. It can go off in lots of different directions. My proposal is that intelligence is a process that attempts to capture future histories," said Wissner-Gross.

 

[The Introvert]

http://www.insidescience.org/content/physicist-proposes-new-way-think-about-intelligence/987

So have they actually developed this?

Also:

But really, I think this is pretty cool. I couldn't really tell if it was all theoretical or not, though.

 

[bartoli]

It's the beginning of Harry Seldon's psychohistory

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I think this program makes a nice miniature...

 

[scorpiomover]

Wow. Just, wow.

This has potential, people. Don't know yet if it's good or bad. But it's got potential.

 

[Cognisant]

Source code? They're physicists working in a field they have no clue about. They're half a step removed from philosophers doing CS.

Like most of the physics crossovers, this one is just as silly. see XKCD: xkcd com/793/

Basically he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Basically he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Neither did that physicist James Watson when he transitioned into biology, amirite?

He has no idea what he's on about.

Well, that means 1 of 2 doesn't... I'm betting on the physicist.

 

[Cognisant]

My specialty is AI, I could lecture you for days on just neural net theories.

He has no idea what he's on about.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

The pdf would be a useful reference:

http://www.cfreer.org/papers/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf