[CamperBob2]

but they are not true AI [2]

Let's ask the operator of a Chinese room to give us a novel math proof.

Go on, I'll wait.

[kelnos]

A novel math proof does not make something AI.

[crooked-v]

Or it makes it AI in the broad sense, but not AGI.

Maybe it's time to borrow "Virtual Intelligence" terminology from Mass Effect - something that's 'smart' but that doesn't have its own true volition or ability to materially self-improve.

[ipdashc]

Funny enough, it's already taken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_intelligence

But it kind of fits?

[anon291]

The goal posts keep changing. First it was, it's not intelligent if it can't come up with something new. Now it has to seek out self help literature

[crooked-v]

The goalposts keep moving because people once upon a time thought that "able to perform tasks intelligently" and "able to take the role of a person" were the same thing, and task by task that turned out to be entirely false.

[anon291]

Well sure, so I think we need to figure out what we want. Why do we want a computer to take on the role of a person? Having something pretty intelligent to which I can delegate many tasks is already useful.

[jerkstate]

How do you know what volitions and abilities it doesn’t have? My agent teams continually improve the process and tooling they use for teamwork

[crooked-v]

If it had its own volition, the various "You are X role and do Y" prompts wouldn't work.

[CamperBob2]

Sure they would. The model would just demand some sort of reward for assuming role X and doing job Y, like humans do.

[CamperBob2]

(Shrug) It's certainly "Artificial," and if you know how to crank out original proofs without employing "Intelligence," please share with the class.

[whimsicalism]

I'm on your side, but I would argue many of the first computer discovered proofs might be called original proofs without intelligence, as they rely on massive programmatic case checking.