[ftxbro]

> The term has all the same issues, does it not?

It could be useful for a similar reason as the euphemism treadmill. We could leave behind all of the misguided assumptions about AI with the old 'artificial intelligence' nomenclature and move forward with 'synthetic intelligence' which has our new understanding of what systems like GPT-4 can do.

[JohnFen]

I'm thinking the problematic part of the term isn't the "artificial" part, but the "intelligence" part.

Since nobody actually knows what "intelligence" is, the word will mean to people whatever they want it to mean.

[nwienert]

I’m partial to Plausible Regurgitation

[fasterik]

>Since nobody actually knows what "intelligence" is

Everybody knows what intelligence is. Even if we can't agree on a precise definition, it's pretty obvious that it's the thing that humans and other animals do that involves learning, reasoning, planning, and problem solving. We can also agree that being successful at certain tasks constitutes intelligence. Solving a math problem is intelligence. Writing a poem is intelligence.

[pixl97]

>Everybody knows what intelligence is

Much like...

"Everyone knows what porn is"

"Everyone knows who god is"

"Everyone knows what beauty is"

The devil is in the details and rather generic words that describe a gradient can never capture the exact nature of what we're trying to define in specific situations.

[TeMPOraL]

> The devil is in the details

Only if you care about those details. Almost no one does.

In almost any conversation, everyone does in fact know what intelligence, porn, god and beauty are. Yes, all those ideas are fuzzy at the borders, but we almost never need to resolve them in detail when talking about them. When we do, then yes, things get tricky and there's a lot of disagreement - but at the end of the day, as the phrase I once read on the Internet goes, it all has to add up to normality. You can still work with fuzzy, casual concepts, even though you can't define them precisely.

[fasterik]

You can never capture the exact nature of anything outside of logic and math. That's too high of a bar. Philosophers who have worked on this problem like Wittgenstein talk about concepts in terms of family resemblances, not exact definitions. If I'm trying to understand whether a system is intelligent, I don't need a logical proof. I learn whether it is intelligent by testing whether it can successfully do many of the same things that other intelligent systems do.

[JohnFen]

But words are meant to convey meaning to other people, so what the word means to others is more important than what it means to you.

This sort of problem is common with language, and is a great example of why I'm not really on board with using natural language for technical things.

[fasterik]

>But words are meant to convey meaning to other people, so what the word means to others is more important than what it means to you.

I pretty much agree with that, so I'm not sure where the disagreement is here. Let me go back to the original statement I was responding to.

>Since nobody actually knows what "intelligence" is, the word will mean to people whatever they want it to mean.

If I tell you someone is intelligent, you roughly know what I am talking about. Just because it's hard to formalize that doesn't mean that that the word can mean whatever people want it to mean. For example, if I tell you my friend is intelligent, you would be wrong to interpret that as meaning that my friend has red hair, because hair color is irrelevant to the traits that we normally associate with intelligence. The fact that there are right and wrong ways of interpreting my sentence implies that there is some generally agreed upon notion of what intelligence is, even if that notion is fuzzy and has grey areas.

[JohnFen]

I disagree. I think that nobody knows what it is, as demonstrated by the fact that there is such a wide disagreement about what it is.

> We can also agree that being successful at certain tasks constitutes intelligence. Solving a math problem is intelligence. Writing a poem is intelligence.

As an example, I don't agree that either of those things indicates intelligence all by themselves. We've had programs that nobody would call "intelligent" to do both of those things for decades.

[fasterik]

>We've had programs that nobody would call "intelligent" to do both of those things for decades.

So you're right that if I have separate algorithms, each designed for a specific purpose, that those algorithms aren't intelligent. However, if I have a general system that can learn how to solve a math problem, write a poem, and do a bunch of other things that humans can do, then that system is intelligent.