|
|
|
|
|
|
by teiferer
260 days ago
|
|
|
> my point was that every time you try to say that no this can't be what intelligence means, it needs to do X, I can find a human who can't do X, Indeed, the point you are making is reasonable. But I'm trying to say that the premise is wrong. Nobody should be expected to come up with a reason why it is not intelligence. We should expect to be presented with evidence that it is intelligence. Absent that, the null hypothesis is that it isn't, just like any other computer program before isn't, uncontroversially. I'm sure you already got my point, apologies for repeating it, but some clarification to clearly carve out our points may not hurt. |
|
|
I'm not asking anybody to come up with a reason why it's not intelligence. I'm telling people they're wrong when they do try to justify calling it not intelligent. if you want to gatekeep a word, you should at least try to define it and then stick to the definition.
It is intelligence in the sense that if somebody had described it in 2010, we would have said yes, that's intelligence and it's hundreds of years away. It isn't intelligence in the sense that it's now here and we've found holes in the story.
Intelligence is so poorly defined that it's an ever receding finish line that somehow we're supposed to cross before we can call the device intelligent.
As Dennett said, it's like magic. Magic that is possible is just tricks. Real magic is that which is impossible.