[exe34]

It's an operational definition: if you claim AI is not intelligent because it cannot do X, then you necessarily exclude a whole lot of humans who also can't do X.

There used to be a strident faction that would say "but AI can't produce original art/a symphony/novel/etc". My answer was usually (correctly), "neither can you."

[dartos]

> It's an operational definition: if you claim AI is not intelligent because it cannot do X, then you necessarily exclude a whole lot of humans who also can't do X.

Sure, but I think most people are intelligent according to my definition, but AI is not…

You’re already coming from the assumption that people are “souless automatons,” which is probably why the idea of a machine being “intelligent” is so easy for you to accept.

> There used to be a strident faction that would say "but AI can't produce original art/a symphony/novel/etc". My answer was usually (correctly), "neither can you."

This is a dumb apples and oranges comparison. AI as a concept is different than a concrete person.

AI as a concept can do anything, it’s a conceptual placeholder for an everything machine.

[dartos]

I can’t reply to the other comment, but “soulless” was to quote the other commenter. Having a soul (whatever that might mean) holds no bearing on what I’m saying.

[exe34]

again, do they obey the laws of physics? can they decide to go against what the physical interactions in their brain guide them to do?

[exe34]

> You’re already coming from the assumption that people are “souless automatons

do your people obey the laws of physics? is the soul magical or physical?