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.
> Because these are the meaningful working definitions for intelligence.
I'm sorry, but I disagree.
Oxford defines intelligence as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". MW: "the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason". I went through a half-a-dozen other definitions, all similar.
Your definition conflates three different ideas: "intelligence", "living", and "agency".
JFC, you're attacking us with the *dictionary definition* of the word? Lololololol
That isn't very polite. 
You use "intelligence" in a way quite different from how regular people use it, how the dictionary uses it, and how scientists use it.
Even without the mockery, no useful conversation could happen. By your definition, intelligence implies being alive, so machines aren't intelligent, and what is there to discuss?
But this sheds no light on the actual question at all.
1/
@malcircuit @dalias @leighms As someone who loves words and learning, it makes me sad to see people mocking dictionaries. One of their key purposes is to make sure that communication is possible between people because they are using the same terms.
Many interesting debates about whether computer programs are or could become intelligent are possible, but not if one side redefines the word intelligent in a non-standard way to specifically exclude computer programs.
2/
@malcircuit @dalias @leighms And a note to two of you in this thread: using mockery and profanity against someone who has been scrupulously polite, if perhaps a bit ponderous and academic, is not just disrespectful, it shows a lack of confidence in your argument.
If I wanted to be mocked and insulted, I could go to Twitter.
Let's hope you cheer up and have a much better day!
Personally, I view treating this as a debate club where every post I make needs to be sufficiently rigorous and supported by enough evidence to thoroughly convince *you* of the correctness of my ideas as disrespectful.
I have no interest in being "right", because there's no fucking way we (a bunch of randos with no expertise in the domain) are going to get to the bottom of the nature of intelligence on a communications platform where people "toot" to each other.
@TomSwirly @malcircuit @leighms With all due respect, FUCK POLITENESS and the assholes who use it as a principle to tone police and silence others. "Polite" and "nice" people are the worst. These qualities are the opposite of *kindness*.
I'm sorry, but insisting I should have a detailed, evidence based argument for my *opinion*, and then citing the dictionary as some sort of authority on the matter strikes me a bit hypocritical.
Like, why is the dictionary definition correct? Especially the OED. That's simply how people use the word colloquially. It's not a precise, technical definition.