[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.