[flatline]

There is a famous Dijkstra quote, “The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.”

Do the intrinsic properties of the system really matter at the end of the day if it performs as well as we do at some task? Heck they’ve been doing many things better for decades, but those are the types of tasks we take it for granted that a machine should be able to do. Solve differential equations. Play chess. But now computers are doing “human” tasks competently. Writing creative fiction. Generating graphical art.

We don’t have a good working definition or metric for intelligence. Surely it is not a monolithic property. Animals exhibit many traits we associate with intelligence. Some of the stuff GPT 3+ generates sounds pretty intelligent. It is the type of things an intelligence may have produced, because it was trained to do just that. If we look at intelligence as a cluster of traits, or behaviors, I think we are surrounded by intelligence - human, artificial, or otherwise. Doesn’t have to be an AGI to fall in that category. It doesn’t even have to be particularly impressive.

[vczf]

I wrote about my definition of intelligence earlier this month: https://tildes.net/~comp/194n/language_is_a_poor_heuristic_f...

    I have a definition of intelligence. [...]

    Intelligence is prediction.
    
    In the case of intelligent living processes ranging from single celled organisms to complex multicellular life, intelligence arises from the need to predict the future to survive and reproduce. More intelligent organisms build more elaborate models of the world using better developed senses in order to do so.
    
    Humans model the world primarily with language, which allows us to share our models with each other, across both space and time! Without language, it is extraordinarily more difficult to communicate complex abstract thoughts. As a side effect of our high level of intelligence, our wetware is capable of modeling things outside of language, such as mathematics. [...]
    
    In general, I think we need to stop equating intelligence with consciousness, agency, moral value, and living things. These are entirely different concepts, and, as a species, we are blinded by our egotistical identity of being smarter than the other animals.

According to my definition, intelligence is actually all around us. We are blind to it because we focus only on how intelligence manifests in humans (defined by by our specific social organization and biological senses), and then use that as a benchmark to judge every other thing in the world.

A less socially-charged definition of intelligence would make it easier to compare intelligence across living and non-living processes, though it would not be "popular science" useful for ranking humans.

[worksonmine]

I don't agree with your definition at all.

2 people want to kill each other. The one taking the first step is the intelligent one because according to your definition he was better at predicting an outcome than his opponent.

The real world is more complex than that and there are multiple options where both survive, or letting your opponent live and killing yourself because his life is more beneficial to humanity and so on.

Any organism can survive, but for most (including us) that implies a selfish outlook but the most intelligent people I know or heard of never even consider their own ego.

[vczf]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The definition of intelligence I propose is wholly distinct from human prosocial values like cooperation.

This makes it useful for judging these properties across living and non-living intelligent processes, such as bacteria, ants, plants, dogs, LLMs, etc. It is not a useful definition for judging the value or "goodness" of human beings within society.

I'm arguing that intelligence (as prediction) is simpler than we often presume, not a mystery at all, and a basic building block of complex life. We happen to have a lot of it.

[worksonmine]

I'm not coming from a moral standpoint either, just giving an example of how correct prediction may lead to consequences we would call retarded. Predicting resources being scarce may lead to over-consumption which leads to the extinction of everything. You could argue an intelligent organism would predict that and adapt but we're still trying ourselves.

There are plants that slow their own growth to share resources if their neighbor is of the same species, and vice-versa if it's a different species. That could be called intelligence in a sense, but it's not as simple as just prediction there's a social aspect and a long-term goal. But is it even conscious and aware of what it's doing or is it just the traits favored by evolution. Is agency part of your definition of prediction or is it enough to just react to the surroundings?

Intelligence is much more complex than a single trait. Being good at prediction is just that, being good at prediction.

[oldandtired]

Your definition of intelligence has been around for millennia and is part of the pantheism concept.

[emodendroket]

Sure, it's neat that it can do those things... still I don't think that I'm exactly ready to toss aside books written by humans in favor of AI-generated alternatives.

[jack_pp]

Writers have started using AI-generated ideas to help them write books.

Same with code. Sure it might not write your product code from start to finish with no help but it will speed up your dev speed significantly for certain tasks. Just because we haven't reached singularity doesn't mean what we have now is useless and putting it down as a "parlor trick" as grandparent said seems to me very unwise.

[emodendroket]

Ad copy has served a similar purpose but nobody would claim ad copy has (or could) supplant creative writing because of that.

[fttx_]

Ad copy is (a form of) creative writing.

[emodendroket]

OK. Literary writing.