[wilg]

Oops, another blogger falling into the trap of not specifying how they define "intelligence" and then making a "no true scotsman" argument against their loose pre-existing beliefs.

If you're thinking about writing an article like this, please just define what you think intelligence is right at the top. That's the entirety of the discussion, the rest is fluff.

Also, as a society we need to minimize the amount of attention we give to debates over definitions. Once a discussion or political debate is reduced to a definitional issue, everyone starts talking past each other and forgets what the argument even is. (See discussions about the definitions of "life", "woman", "socialism", "capitalism", etc.) Words are lossy proxies to ideas, and they only matter insofar as they allow us to understand one another.

[kelseyfrog]

They need to go beyond defining intelligence. They need to operationalize intelligence.

The problems still are many. First, we've already operationalized intelligence, namely through IQ tests see Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Universal Nonverbal Intelligence, Differential Ability Scales, Peabody Individual Achievement Test, Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, &c. Even so, HN users will both point out the (in)validity of these but also the (in)validity with respect to applying them to AI.

The real problem is that intelligence is a socially defined phenomenon, as opposed to an essential metaphysical property. If we admit that, many of the definition foibles we have become irrelevant.