Recent searches
Search options
@leighms @malcircuit > I think the test suggested by @malcircuit is a good one.
Because why? Here are some highlights
> True intelligence can only exist in living creatures.
Why?
> Intelligence is the thing living creatures use to improve their chances of survival.
Why?
> Intelligence requires agency in the physical world.
Why?
> An algorithm alone cannot be intelligent.
Why?
These aren't arguments: these are unsupported claims.
@TomSwirly @leighms @malcircuit Because these are the meaningful working definitions for intelligence. Definitions don't have proofs. You're free to make shit definitions, but they won't be useful for expressing meaningful ideas or using in studying phenomona, making predictions.
@TomSwirly @leighms @malcircuit Of course this won't stop ppl from proposing and using shit definitions. Douchy white men have a long history of making poor definitions of "intelligence" (see: IQ) that serve their goals (building and preserving unjust stratified societies).
Indeed.
I am, in fact, asserting a definition for intelligence without any supporting evidence. I'm also not a scientist. I don't claim to be correct. This is simply *my view* on the situation, based on things that I've read and listened to, and my own personal experience.
1/2
@malcircuit @dalias @leighms If you can redefine any word to have a different meaning from both how regular people use it, and how dictionaries define it, you can win any argument, but it makes everything rather meaningless.
Your argument is now this: "computers cannot be intelligent, because my definition of the word intelligence excludes computers."
It certainly ends the argument, but not in an interesting or useful way.
@TomSwirly @malcircuit @leighms Computers can be intelligent when they have agency and use reasoning in ways that affect the survival/continuation of that agency. Not when they are tools for the agency of the worst humans.