[thomasdziedzic]

> stop repeating that. first, it isn't true that intelligence is barely defined. https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639

I don't think he should stop, because I think he's right. We lack a definition of intelligence that doesn't do a lot of hand waving.

You linked to a paper with 18 collective definitions, 35 psychologist definitions, and 18 ai researcher definitions of intelligence. And the conclusion of the paper was that they came up with their own definition of intelligence. That is not a definition in my book.

> second a definition is obviously not a prerequisite as evidenced by natural selection

right, we just need a universe, several billions of years and sprinkle some evolution and we'll also get intelligence, maybe.

[nh23423fefe]

cool, you can move goalposts and claim no true scotsman would define intelligence that way; in addition you are confusing sufficient and necessary.