[msaeki]

Good to see we’re all on the same page that this piece is lacking.

Focusing on the understanding of intelligence in it, which leads to his goalpost moving theory: there are multiple senses to the word in English, and this dictionary definition doesn’t meet the one we use for what we see in say, the cleverness of children (who “know” very little, and yet..). Or even what we see in animals. That sense refers to something real, and is well explored in philosophy - but in branches that have been avoided by comp sci since its inception (thus McCarthy’s et al.’s mistaken usage and Turing’s punting on considering what it is).

The sense that comp sci tends to lean toward is the one intended in things like I.Q. and seen in puzzle solving. To the degree that we can call software intelligent, it’s because we see this intelligence encoded in it (usually reflective of the authors’ ability in this sense and the tradition they build on). Never the first kind, though.

That’s what keeps us from accepting it as AI.