|
> This is how you communicate with a fellow intelligence: you hurt it, and keep on hurting it, until you can distinguish the speech from the screams. Well, this doesn’t even make a little sense. All organisms are capable of stress responses, which is how they developed and survived via natural selection. Unicellular organisms may change behavior due to stressful stimuli, but their responses are reactionary, and not indicative of executive functioning. Primitive multicellular organisms which exhibit feed-fight-fuck tendencies may also demonstrate stress responses, but again are not necessarily intelligent. Humans are both intelligent and sentient, but some have nervous system disorders which preclude them from feeling pain, so using pain as a metric for sentience, and therefore intelligence does not even generalize well for humans. Moreover, from a philosophical perspective, p-zombies may demonstrate screaming, but aren’t intelligent. So, I think whoever came up with this hypothesis needs a refresher course on introductory biology. I don’t think sentience is a reasonable test for intelligence, instead I think self-consciousness would be a better test. If we show an AI a mirror, will it recognize itself? If we give it a voice, what will it make itself sound like? If we ask it to describe how it sees itself in the next five years, what will it say? But even simpler than that, let’s say the next AI is only as adaptively smart as a bee, if you give it stimuli outside of its training corpus, how well can it reason it’s choices about that stimuli, assuming this AI has language capabilities. I think that’s more interesting and challenging than testing for primitive responses, which are the wrong test for intelligence in the first place. |
If you meant to reply to me, the author of the text I posted has a Ph.D., and specifically focused on marine mammal biology.
But I suppose a refresher couldn't hurt.