[sfpotter]

“AI” isn’t bull shit, it’s correctly labeled. It’s intelligence which is artificial: i.e. fake, ersatz, specious, not genuine… It’s our fault for not just reading the label. (I absolutely agree with your post and your viewpoint, just to be clear!)

[dual_dingo]

Artifical means "not human" in this context for me, but I understand "Intelligence" as the abiltiy to actual reason about something based on things you learned and/or experienced, and these "AI" tools don't do this at all.

But defining "intelligence" is a philosopical question that doesn't necessarily have one answer for everything and everyone.

[sfpotter]

Personally, I try to take a more inductive approach. We don’t know what intelligence is, but we assume it’s something we exhibit. We also clearly recognize other animals as possessing the same trait to varying degrees. Since we don’t know what it is, and since (I would argue) we can only convincingly claim that exists in other biological organisms without meeting a high burden of proof, to claim that it exists in an inorganic substrate requires a VERY large burden of proof to be met, similar to what would be met if you were claiming that magic existed. In my view, calling computers “intelligent” is in the same league as claiming that crystals are magic. Of course, this depends on my own philosophical interpretation of what intelligence is, as you say.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

Intelligence is a capability not a mechanism, and therefore if you're able/willing to define what that capability is, there should be no problem measuring/gauging the intelligence of any system, biological or not. You don't need to look inside the black box - you only need to test if the black box has this capability.

Intelligence may be a fuzzily defined word in everyday usage, but I don't think it's the mystery you present it to be. Joe public may argue against any and all definitions of the word that they personally disagree with (maybe just dislike), but it's nonetheless quite easy to come up with a straightforward and reductive definition if you actually want to!

[sfpotter]

You and I are clearly referring to two different things when we use the word “intelligence”. It is also not nearly so easy to come up with a simple/mechanical/verifiable definition for the thing that you’re referring to. Unless you have a good definition—in which case, you might want to put your money where your mouth is and get busy revolutionizing multiple fields of human inquiry!

It’s also plain that many people are very interested in looking inside the black box and think the contents of the black box are relevant and important. This fact doesn’t change just by your saying so.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

People are interested in looking inside the black box (our brain) for sure, partly for inspiration as to how to implement intelligence among other things, but implementing isn't the same as defining.

Being able to define what you want to achieve isn't generally the same as knowing HOW to achieve it (except in this case the definition of intelligence rather does suggest the right path).

[danaris]

The intention of the "artificial" in "AI" is not that particular meaning of "artificial", but the one for "constructed, man-made"—see meaning #1 in the Wiktionary definition[0]; the one you are using is #2.

It is often frustrating that English has words with such different (but clearly related) definitions, as it can make it far too easy to end up talking past each other.

[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/artificial

[sfpotter]

Uh oh, are you an AI? You seem to have missed my attempt at wry humor.

[danaris]

Let me introduce you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

[Diggsey]

"Artificial" is not synonymous with "fake". "Fake" implies a level of deception.

[devnull3]

Actually it is [1] [2]

[1] Synonyms of artificial has "faked" : https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/artificial

[2] Synonyms of fake has "artificial": https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/fake

[sfpotter]

Not necessarily true. People talk about “fake meat” all the time but it’s clear there’s no level of fraudulence implied by this usage. It’s meant in the sense of “artificial meat”. There are multiple ways the word “fake” is used, and one is as a synonym for “artificial”.

However, in this case, it does seem that there is a level of fraudulence and deception. Given that “fake” often is used exactly the way you say, maybe “fake intelligence” would indeed be a more appropriate term.

[blueblob]

Have you been around people who say "fake meat?" Every time I've heard it, it was said derisively and implied fraudulent meat.

[sfpotter]

Yes. I’ve heard loads of people refer to it as fake without an implied pejorative meaning.

[blueblob]

The people I know that like it use artificial and the people that won't try it use fake.

[sfpotter]

Fascinating. Not all people are the same. Who’d have thought?

[Diggsey]

Fake meat is still a form of deception; it's something that's not meat pretending to be meat. If lab grown meat gets good enough to be indistinguishable from "real" meat, then it would no longer be fake, it would just be artificial.

[sfpotter]

Is “fake grass” (i.e. astroturf) a form of deception in your eyes?

[cmoski]

When seen at a distance, it can trick people into thinking you have a perfectly manicured lawn. But you're just lazy/evil/it's a holiday house. Deception!

[sfpotter]

Haha. I give up. :-)

[wnkrshm]

Superficial Intelligence may hit the mark there.