[flexie]

I agree that mastering board games requires intelligence. I also agree that good chess players are usually intelligent, even quite smart. But it's not like people's abilities in chess are directly proportional to their intelligence, is it?

I mean, you would probably have mediocre chess players that could beat Plato or Darwin or Einstein.

Why is it that computers' abilities to win chess or Go are seen as the proxy for how far AI has come? As if the pinnacle of civilisation is Go or if Magnus Carlsen is the greatest mind of all times. Go and chess are sports. It's rugby for nerds. A computer beating Kasparov is impressive in its own right, but it's a far cry from the computer having his intelligence.

[kamaal]

Actually bulk of what we call human intelligence is basically nothing more than a chain of facts we built up, each fact derived based on the truths we learned(or perceived) before.

Intelligence therefore is that process where you get from A to B, with steps in between that require consciously investigating the already available knowledge to us.

This is already happening with machines today. Someday a person will come up with a generic learning algorithm, which has a meta component to either search for answers in the space it already knows, or use external means to learn more about it.

Please also note without means to move around, use your hand/legs/eyes et al to test around and build your experiences, we will likely have the same primitive intelligence. Only difference now is instead of giving the machines these sensory organs, we are only working with an algorithm with inputs and outputs and then have it evolve.

[Houshalter]

There is no such thing as a universal intelligence test. I'm not claiming that winning at Go implies intelligence. I'm simply demonstrating that spiders aren't generally intelligent. They can't learn to do things other than what they were programmed to do. Whereas ANNs can do a wide variety of tasks, including tasks no animals are remotely capable of.