|
|
|
|
|
by worksonmine
1034 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.