Artificial general intelligence (AGI) may herald our extinction, according to AI safety research. Yet claims regarding AGI must rely upon mathematical formalisms -- theoretical agents we may analyse or attempt to build. AIXI appears to be the only such formalism supported by proof that its behaviour is optimal, a consequence of its use of compression as a proxy for intelligence. Unfortunately, AIXI is incomputable and claims regarding its behaviour highly subjective. We argue that this is because AIXI formalises cognition as taking place in isolation from the environment in which goals are pursued (Cartesian dualism). We propose an alternative, supported by proof and experiment, which overcomes these problems. Integrating research from cognitive science with AI, we formalise an enactive model of learning and reasoning to address the problem of subjectivity. This allows us to formulate a different proxy for intelligence, called weakness, which addresses the problem of incomputability. We prove optimal behaviour is attained when weakness is maximised. This proof is supplemented by experimental results comparing weakness and description length (the closest analogue to compression possible without reintroducing subjectivity). Weakness outperforms description length, suggesting it is a better proxy. Furthermore we show that, if cognition is enactive, then minimisation of description length is neither necessary nor sufficient to attain optimal performance, undermining the notion that compression is closely related to intelligence. However, there remain open questions regarding the implementation of scale-able AGI. In the short term, these results may be best utilised to improve the performance of existing systems. For example, our results explain why Deepmind's Apperception Engine is able to generalise effectively, and how to replicate that performance by maximising weakness.

The following defines intent, an arbitrary task and its solutions, and then argues that an agent which always constructs what is called an Intensional Solution would qualify as artificial general intelligence. We then explain how natural language may emerge and be acquired by such an agent, conferring the ability to model the intent of other individuals labouring under similar compulsions, because an abstract symbol system and the solution to a task are one and the same.

In order to construct an ethical artificial intelligence (AI) two complex problems must be overcome. Firstly, humans do not consistently agree on what is or is not ethical. Second, contemporary AI and machine learning methods tend to be blunt instruments which either search for solutions within the bounds of predefined rules, or mimic behaviour. An ethical AI must be capable of inferring unspoken rules, interpreting nuance and context, possess and be able to infer intent, and explain not just its actions but its intent. Using enactivism, semiotics, perceptual symbol systems and symbol emergence, we specify an agent that learns not just arbitrary relations between signs but their meaning in terms of the perceptual states of its sensorimotor system. Subsequently it can learn what is meant by a sentence and infer the intent of others in terms of its own experiences. It has malleable intent because the meaning of symbols changes as it learns, and its intent is represented symbolically as a goal. As such it may learn a concept of what is most likely to be considered ethical by the majority within a population of humans, which may then be used as a goal. The meaning of abstract symbols is expressed using perceptual symbols of raw sensorimotor stimuli as the weakest (consistent with Ockham's Razor) necessary and sufficient concept, an intensional definition learned from an ostensive definition, from which the extensional definition or category of all ethical decisions may be obtained. Because these abstract symbols are the same for both situation and response, the same symbol is used when either performing or observing an action. This is akin to mirror neurons in the human brain. Mirror symbols may allow the agent to empathise, because its own experiences are associated with the symbol, which is also associated with the observation of another agent experiencing something that symbol represents.

We argue that an explainable artificial intelligence must possess a rationale for its decisions, be able to infer the purpose of observed behaviour, and be able to explain its decisions in the context of what its audience understands and intends. To address these issues we present four novel contributions. Firstly, we define an arbitrary task in terms of perceptual states, and discuss two extremes of a domain of possible solutions. Secondly, we define the intensional solution. Optimal by some definitions of intelligence, it describes the purpose of a task. An agent possessed of it has a rationale for its decisions in terms of that purpose, expressed in a perceptual symbol system grounded in hardware. Thirdly, to communicate that rationale requires natural language, a means of encoding and decoding perceptual states. We propose a theory of meaning in which, to acquire language, an agent should model the world a language describes rather than the language itself. If the utterances of humans are of predictive value to the agent's goals, then the agent will imbue those utterances with meaning in terms of its own goals and perceptual states. In the context of Peircean semiotics, a community of agents must share rough approximations of signs, referents and interpretants in order to communicate. Meaning exists only in the context of intent, so to communicate with humans an agent must have comparable experiences and goals. An agent that learns intensional solutions, compelled by objective functions somewhat analogous to human motivators such as hunger and pain, may be capable of explaining its rationale not just in terms of its own intent, but in terms of what its audience understands and intends. It forms some approximation of the perceptual states of humans.