[bee_rider]

Very clever people have located true intelligence in the gaps between what an machine can do and what a human can. Therefore, to show that you aren’t a starry-eyed rube you put a disclaimer that you aren’t really talking about intelligence, but something that just looks and acts like it.

True intelligence is, of course, definitionally the ability to do things like art or… err, wait, sorry, I haven’t checked recently, where have we put the goalposts nowadays?

[ethanbond]

I’m hesitant to even call this moving the goal posts. Intelligence has never been solidly defined even within humans (see: IQ debate; book smart vs street smart; idiot savants).

It’s unsurprising that creating machines that seem to do some stuff very intelligently and some other things not very intelligently at all is causing some discontent with regard to our language.

I see a whole lot more gnashing of teeth about goalposts moving than I do about people proposing actual solid goalposts.

So what’s your definition?

[bee_rider]

> I’m hesitant to even call this moving the goal posts. Intelligence has never been solidly defined even within humans (see: IQ debate; book smart vs street smart; idiot savants).

> It’s unsurprising that creating machines that seem to do some stuff very intelligently and some other things not very intelligently at all is causing some discontent with regard to our language.

I think I agree about the language.

I don’t have a definition of intelligence. I don’t work in one of those fields that would need to define it, so my first attempt probably wouldn’t be very good, but I’d say intelligence isn’t a single thing, but a label we’ve arbitrarily applied to a bunch of behaviors that are loosely related at best. So, trying to say this thing is intelligent, this thing is not, is basically hopeless, especially when things that we don’t believe are intelligent are being made to exhibit those behaviors, one behavior at a time.

> I see a whole lot more gnashing of teeth about goalposts moving than I do about people proposing actual solid goalposts.

I might not see a ton of explicit “here are the goalpost” type statements. But, every time someone says “I’m using the term AI, but actually of course this isn’t intelligence,” the seem to me at least to be referencing some implicit goalposts. If there isn’t a way of classifying what is or isn’t intelligent, how can they say something isn’t it? I think the people making the distinction have the responsibility to tell us where they’ve made the cutoff.

Maybe I’m just quibbling. Now that I’ve written all that out, I’m beginning to wonder if I just don’t like the wording of the disclaimer. I’d probably be satisfied if instead of “this isn’t intelligence, but I’m going to call it AI,” people would say “Intelligence is too hard to define, so I’m going to call this AI, because why not?”

[oszai]

Conceptually Speaking you can reduce it down to Intelligence and strip out the Artificial Label.

So know the question is what is Intelligence. Our standardized testing Model tells us passing tests that Humans cannot would be considered intelligent.

Then add back in artificial to complete the equation.

Commercially the Term Ai Means nothing thanks to years of Machine Learning being labeled such. It's arbitrary and relays more to Group Think to avoid approaching that Intelligence is a Scalar Value and not a Binary Construct.

[pixl97]

>So what’s your definition?

I say we take the word intelligence and throw it out the window. It's a bit like talking about the either before we discovered more about physics. We chose a word with an ethereal definition that may or may not apply depending on the context.

So what do we do instead? We define sets of capability and context and devise tests around that. If it turns out a test actually sucked or was not expansive enough, we don't get rid of that particular test. Instead we make a new more advanced test with better coverage. Under this domain no human would pass all the tests either. We could each individual sub test with ratings like 'far below human capability', 'average human capability', 'far beyond human capabilities'. These tests could be everywhere from emotional understanding and comprehension, to reasoning and logical ability, and even include embodiment tests.

Of course even then I see a day where some embodied robot beats the vast majority of emotional, intellectual, and physical tests and some human supremacist still comes back with "iTs n0t InTeLLigeNt"

[pixl97]

Heh, Computers will never be intelligent, we will just moving the bar until humans can no longer be classified as intelligent.

[hospitalJail]

Stable Diffusion doesnt make art, it makes photos. We can deem them art.

Its denoising software.

[lucubratory]

Ooh, this is a rare one! A comment directly noting the similarities between AI art with photography, but insisting both aren't art. You're in very historical company: https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/

[hospitalJail]

>Photography couldn’t qualify as an art in its own right, the explanation went, because it lacked “something beyond mere mechanism at the bottom of it.”

That has nothing to do with the technology, that has everything to do with the quality.

Is it art if I take a picture with the cap on? No. Is it art if I take a picture of a tan colored wall? No.

Is it art if I set up something beautiful and take a picture. Its closer to art than the previous few examples.

If I write a prompt that says: "a green bedroom with art work on the walls", to be inspired, that still isnt trying to be art.

Basically, have higher standards.