| > Everybody seem to agree humans are intelligent and stones not. You suggest at some point in time intelligence appeared out of nothing. Can you nail that point? I suggest no such thing. It is a scale. I deliberately avoided the phrase "human-level intelligence", but any definition of AGI would do. Even so, if you want to count all life as "a little intelligent" then it still took a billion years of planet-wide chemistry to stumble upon it (ignoring the Earth's cooling). Still far more effort than fertilising a human egg. > One possible definition is: To act adequately in an environment requires intelligence. This is no less ambiguous, since you've not defined "adequate". > How might a piece of software act adequately? By above reasoning it has to resist to termination. That does not follow. "Termination" is the mechanism of natural selection, so all systems undergoing natural selection will biased to resist it (otherwise they'd be out-competed by those who do). If we use some unguided analogue of natural selection to create intelligent software, then there would certainly be such a bias. However, my point is that unguided evolution is not the right way to create/increase intelligence. As soon as we try to influence the software's creation in any way, either through artificial selection criteria or by hand-coding it from scratch, we introduce new biases which may be far more powerful than the implicit "avoid termination" bias. > But I think, when software starts to trick users and admin into not shutting them down, some threshold has been crossed. That's called malware... ;) |
... or propose another. I tend to avoid all social, psychological definitions to end up with something measurable along the lines of Schrödinger's "What is Life?".
> That's called malware... ;)
I'm sure, stones think same about amoeba.