To make deliberate progress towards more intelligent and more human-like artificial systems, we need to be following an appropriate feedback signal: we need to be able to define and evaluate intelligence in a way that enables comparisons between two systems, as well as comparisons with humans. Over the past hundred years, there has been an abundance of attempts to define and measure intelligence, across both the fields of psychology and AI. We summarize and critically assess these definitions and evaluation approaches, while making apparent the two historical conceptions of intelligence that have implicitly guided them. We note that in practice, the contemporary AI community still gravitates towards benchmarking intelligence by comparing the skill exhibited by AIs and humans at specific tasks such as board games and video games. We argue that solely measuring skill at any given task falls short of measuring intelligence, because skill is heavily modulated by prior knowledge and experience: unlimited priors or unlimited training data allow experimenters to "buy" arbitrary levels of skills for a system, in a way that masks the system's own generalization power. We then articulate a new formal definition of intelligence based on Algorithmic Information Theory, describing intelligence as skill-acquisition efficiency and highlighting the concepts of scope, generalization difficulty, priors, and experience. Using this definition, we propose a set of guidelines for what a general AI benchmark should look like. Finally, we present a benchmark closely following these guidelines, the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC), built upon an explicit set of priors designed to be as close as possible to innate human priors. We argue that ARC can be used to measure a human-like form of general fluid intelligence and that it enables fair general intelligence comparisons between AI systems and humans.

In the history of artificial intelligence, an AI winter is a period of reduced funding and interest in artificial intelligence research.[1] The term was coined by analogy to the idea of a nuclear winter.[2] The field has experienced several hype cycles, followed by disappointment and criticism, followed by funding cuts, followed by renewed interest years or decades later. The term first appeared in 1984 as the topic of a public debate at the annual meeting of AAAI (then called the "American Association of Artificial Intelligence"). It is a chain reaction that begins with pessimism in the AI community, followed by pessimism in the press, followed by a severe cutback in funding, followed by the end of serious research.[2] At the meeting, Roger Schank and Marvin Minsky--two leading AI researchers who had survived the "winter" of the 1970s--warned the business community that enthusiasm for AI had spiraled out of control in the 1980s and that disappointment would certainly follow. Three years later, the billion-dollar AI industry began to collapse.[2] Hype is common in many emerging technologies, such as the railway mania or the dot-com bubble. The AI winter is primarily a collapse in the perception of AI by government bureaucrats and venture capitalists.

When I think about "managing information" and using "information of many types and from many sources" I think about the different levels of interoperability of that information and the different types of AI and automation that occurs at different levels of interoperability. In this article, I introduce 4 levels of interoperability used in industries like Healthcare and the associated AI and automation that aligns with or is enabled by increasing levels of interoperability. These 4 levels of interoperability are critical to managing information and realizing the full potential of AI and automation for enabling a "holistic cyber defense machine". Foundational Interoperability (Level 1) – establishes the inter-connectivity requirements needed for one system or application to securely communicate data to and receive data from another. Foundational Interoperability lets the data transmitted by one system to be received by another.

This is a talk from GOTO Chicago 2019 by Doug Lenat, Award-winning AI pioneer who created the landmark Machine Learning program, AM, in 1976 and CEO of Cycorp. I've dropped the full talk abstract below for a read before diving into the talk: Almost everyone who talks about Artificial Intelligence, nowadays, means training multi-level neural nets on big data. Developing and using those patterns is a lot like what our right brain hemispheres do; it enables AI's to react quickly and – very often – adequately. But we human beings also make good use of our left brain hemisphere, which reasons more slowly, logically, and causally. I will discuss this "other type of AI" – i.e., left brain AI, which comprises a formal representation language, a "seed" knowledge base with hand-engineered default rules of common sense and good domain-specific expert judgement written in that language, and an inference engine capable of producing hundreds-deep chains of deduction, induction, and abduction on that large knowledge base.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of modern-day security solutions for its capability of learning very complex functions and handling "Big Data". However, the lack of explainability and interpretability of successful AI models is a key stumbling block when trust in a model's prediction is critical. This leads to human intervention, which in turn results in a delayed response or decision. While there have been major advancements in the speed and performance of AI-based intrusion detection systems, the response is still at human speed when it comes to explaining and interpreting a specific prediction or decision. In this work, we infuse popular domain knowledge (i.e., CIA principles) in our model for better explainability and validate the approach on a network intrusion detection test case. Our experimental results suggest that the infusion of domain knowledge provides better explainability as well as a faster decision or response. In addition, the infused domain knowledge generalizes the model to work well with unknown attacks, as well as open the path to adapt to a large stream of network traffic from numerous IoT devices.

T eaching Perception Jonathan H. Connell 1 Abstract -- The visual world is very rich and generally too complex to perceive in its entirety. Y et only certain features are typically required to adequately perform some task in a given situation. Rather than hardwire-in decisions about when and what to sense, this paper describes a robotic system whose behavioral policy can be set by verbal instructions it receives. These capabilities are demonstrated in an associated video [1] showing the fully implemented system guiding the perception of a physical robot in simple scenario. The structure and functioning of the underlying natural language based symbolic reasoning system is also discussed. I. INTRODUCTION Sensing is not without costs. For any given object there are many things that can be known about it. What constitutes a reasonable amount of information to obtain? For instance, to identify an object in a scene a robot could run a DNN recognizer. But, depending on the resources available, this may take a noticeable amount of time. And, while some recognizers have Nary outputs, others are designed as one-versus-all. In this case, to classify an object a robot might have to run N separate nets.

Home robots may come with many sophisticated built-in abilities, however there will always be a degree of customization needed for each user and environment. Ideally this should be accomplished through one-shot learning, as collecting the large number of examples needed for statistical inference is tedious. A particularly appealing approach is to simply explain to the robot, via speech, what it should be doing. In this paper we describe the ALIA cognitive architecture that is able to effectively incorporate user-supplied advice and prohibitions in this manner. The functioning of the implemented system on a small robot is illustrated by an associated video [11]. 1 INTRODUCTION A typical home robot of the future might have built-in navigation, object recognition, task planning, and dexterous manipulation. Y et, despite these sophisticated capabilities, there are still things it cannot know when it first arrives. For instance, what a particular room in the house is called, even if it can identify the general type.

Behaviour change is key to addressing both the challenges facing human health and wellbeing and to promoting the uptake of research findings in health policy and practice. We need to make better use of the vast amount of accumulating evidence from behaviour change intervention (BCI) evaluations and promote the uptake of that evidence into a wide range of contexts. The scale and complexity of the task of synthesising and interpreting this evidence, and increasing evidence timeliness and accessibility, will require increased computer support. The Human Behaviour-Change Project (HBCP) will use Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning to (i) develop and evaluate a'Knowledge System' that automatically extracts, synthesises and interprets findings from BCI evaluation reports to generate new insights about behaviour change and improve prediction of intervention effectiveness and (ii) allow users, such as practitioners, policy makers and researchers, to easily and efficiently query the system to get answers to variants of the question'What works, compared with what, how well, with what exposure, with what behaviours (for how long), for whom, in what settings and why?'. The HBCP will: a) develop an ontology of BCI evaluations and their reports linking effect sizes for given target behaviours with intervention content and delivery and mechanisms of action, as moderated by exposure, populations and settings; b) develop and train an automated feature extraction system to annotate BCI evaluation reports using this ontology; c) develop and train machine learning and reasoning algorithms to use the annotated BCI evaluation reports to predict effect sizes for particular combinations of behaviours, interventions, populations and settings; d) build user and machine interfaces for interrogating and updating the knowledge base; and e) evaluate all the above in terms of performance and utility.

The TextGraphs-13 Shared Task on Explanation Regeneration asked participants to develop methods to reconstruct gold explanations for elementary science questions. Red Dragon AI's entries used the language of the questions and explanation text directly, rather than a constructing a separate graph-like representation. Our leaderboard submission placed us 3rd in the competition, but we present here three methods of increasing sophistication, each of which scored successively higher on the test set after the competition close.

Reasoning semantically in first-order logic is notoriously a challenge. This paper surveys a selection of semantically-guided or model-based methods that aim at meeting aspects of this challenge. For first-order logic we touch upon resolution-based methods, tableaux-based methods, DPLL-inspired methods, and we give a preview of a new method called SGGS, for Semantically-Guided Goal-Sensitive reasoning. For first-order theories we highlight hierarchical and locality-based methods, concluding with the recent Model-Constructing satisfiability calculus.