[mantrax]

I'm in love with your out-of-the-box analysis, but it also makes basic mistakes.

The informal definition of rational is having good sense and good judgment. If your formal definition results in agents that never do anything, or are in basic conflicts with millions of years of evolution and survival, then it's far more likely the formal definition is wrong, or your understanding of it is wrong, and not humans.

I understand the benefits of strict formal rational analysis. You can reason about it. But then if you'll talk about that, don't compare it to intelligence. Strict rationality is not intelligent. It's a tool we've made ourselves that has specific strengths and weaknesses born out of its restrictions.

And strict rationality is absolutely dependent on the model you apply it on. Wrong model + perfect rationality = disastrous decision. No one talks about the models, ever, it seems.

This is the real problem with AI - that we try to implement our very rough (at this point of time) idea of what intelligence is. If we knew all the details of animal/human intelligence, we wouldn't be sitting here debating it, we would've just implemented the AI with it.