I agree with the others who claim that you are mistaken in calling intelligence a psychological construct. — Leontiskos
There are three important characteristics to this definition. First, when a person's intelligence is considered, it is in the context of their maximal capacity to solve novel problems, not a person's typically manifested intelligent behaviour. (...) Secondly, the essence of human intelligence is closely tied to its application in novel contexts (Davidson & Downing, 2000; Raaheim & Brun, 1985). This entails solving problems that a person has not previously encountered, rather than those with which they are already familiar. (...) Thirdly, human intelligence is underpinned by perceptual-cognitive functions (Thomson, 1919), which, at a basic level, encompass a range of mental processes, including attention, visual perception, auditory perception, and sensory integration (i.e., multiple modalities). — Gilles E. Gignac, Eva T. Szodorai
Though our recommended abstract definition of human intelligence may help elucidate its conceptual nature, it lacks concreteness to be sufficiently useful to guide the development of corresponding psychometric measures of intelligence. — Gilles E. Gignac, Eva T. Szodorai
we propose defining artificial intelligence abstractly as the maximal capacity of an artificial system to successfully achieve a novel goal through computational algorithms. — Gilles E. Gignac, Eva T. Szodorai
Our abstract definition of AI is identical to the definition of human intelligence we outlined above, with two exceptions. First, we replaced ‘human’ with ‘artificial system’ to reflect the fundamental distinction between organic, human cognitive processes versus synthetic, computer-based operations inherent in AI systems. Secondly, novel goals are specified to be achieved through the use of computational algorithms, not perceptual-cognitive processes. — Gilles E. Gignac, Eva T. Szodorai
I guess they're saying that applying a known solution doesn't indicate intelligence. I was watching a YouTube of a bird using a piece of cracker as fish bait. It would drop the bit in the water and wait for a fish to come — frank
If this is instinctual and all birds do it, it's not a sign of intelligence. — frank
But if the bird worked this out on it's own, learning, adapting, adopting new strategies, then it's intelligent. — frank
Despite not reaching the threshold of artificial intelligence, artificial achievement and expertise systems should, nonetheless, be regarded as remarkable scientific accomplishments, ones that can be anticipated to impact many aspects of society in significant ways. — frank
This doesn't help with the logical fallacy of equivocation, for "the essential and enduring structure" of humans and computers are very far apart, both actually and epistemologically. — Leontiskos
Computer programs don't transcend their code. — Leontiskos
That which is designed has a determinate end. It acts the way it was designed to act. — Leontiskos
I was just pointing out the emptiness of critique that, when stripped of its irrelevant elements, consists of nothing but truisms. — SophistiCat
dismissive truisms like this: — SophistiCat
The nature of living systems is to change themselves in ways that retain a normative continuity in the face of changing circumstances. Cognition is an elaboration of such organismic dynamics. A.I. changes itself according to principles that we program into it, in relation to norms that belong to us. Thus, A.I. is an appendage of our own self-organizing ecology. It will only think when it becomes a self-organizing system which can produce and change its own norms. No machine can do that, since the very nature of being a machine is to — Joshs
First, Goertzel (2010); Goertzel & Yu, 2014) defined artificial intelligence as a system's ability to recognise patterns quantifiable through the observable development of actions or responses while achieving complex goals in complex environments. — here
Why would instinctual behaviors not be intelligent behaviors? Instinctual behaviors are developed over time with the trial and error being performed by natural selection rather than the individual organism.I guess they're saying that applying a known solution doesn't indicate intelligence. I was watching a YouTube of a bird using a piece of cracker as fish bait. It would drop the bit in the water and wait for a fish to come. If this is instinctual and all birds do it, it's not a sign of intelligence. But if the bird worked this out on it's own, learning, adapting, adopting new strategies, then it's intelligent. — frank
Why would instinctual behaviors not be intelligent behaviors? Instinctual behaviors are developed over time with the trial and error being performed by natural selection rather than the individual organism.
When learning a new task, like riding a bike, you eventually learn how to ride it effortlessly. That is to say, that you no longer have to focus on the movements of your feet and balancing on the seat. It is done instinctively once you master the task. Does that mean that intelligence is no longer involved in riding the bike? — Harry Hindu
I think you just haven't understood the argument, and thus are engaged in a "lazy dismissal." You could disagree with the claim that humans are able to "set their own norms," but you wouldn't be on very solid ground. — Leontiskos
dismissive truisms — SophistiCat
What exactly is your complaint, here? That it is true? — Leontiskos
That it is empty. — SophistiCat
I was addressing the argument - not the thesis about what is sine qua non for intelligence, but that it is out of reach for AI by its "very nature." — SophistiCat
3. "Legg and Hutter (2007b, p. 402) defined intelligence as “an agent's ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments”" — frank
People don't have subjective experiences.
A super-duper slave.
Though our recommended abstract definition of human intelligence may help elucidate its conceptual nature, it lacks concreteness to be sufficiently useful to guide the development of corresponding psychometric measures of intelligence. — Gilles E. Gignac, Eva T. Szodorai
Yeah, this is a methodological problem. It's a methodological "bad thing", so to speak. — Arcane Sandwich
It sounds like the idea is to conceive of AI as a "soulless" human. So that it has no goals of its own, but if someone gives it a task/goal then it will be able to complete it. A super-duper slave. And its ability to complete arbitrary goals is what makes it intelligent. It is a hypothetical imperative machine which not only provides information about how to achieve any given end, but in fact achieves it. — Leontiskos
I may be causing confusion because I've drifted somewhat from the OP. I launched off into what we really mean by AI, how we might think about comparing AI's to humans, etc. — frank
Then not all brain processes are intelligent processes? It seems to me that you are implying that intelligence requires consciousness. If that is the case then why include artificial intelligence and not natural selection for comparison? It may be that AI is demonstrating something that could be called "intelligence".The goal of this article is to review definitions that have been offered for human and artificial intelligence and pick out one that might allow for quantifiable comparison, so we want something we can test.
It may be that natural selection is demonstrating something that could be called "intelligence" but we aren't assessing natural selection.
I would say yes, once a task becomes second nature and you do it without thought, it's no longer a hallmark of intelligence. Maybe the learning phase involved intelligence. — frank
Then let me ask you this, frank. Does it make sense to use the word "intelligence" for an inorganic object to begin with? What I mean by that is that the concept of intelligence might be entirely biological, as in, in order to be intelligent in the literal sense, you need to have central nervous system to begin with. Any other use of the word "intelligence" is like the use of the word "horse" to refer to a bronze statue of a horse. It's not really a horse, it's just a statue. — Arcane Sandwich
Why would you reserve the word "intelligent" for biological entities? — frank
Maybe you should look at intelligence as a process and define the necessary components of the process to then say which processes are intelligent and which are not. — Harry Hindu
Why would someone reserve the word "horse" for a living creature and not a bronze statue that just looks like one, without being one? — Arcane Sandwich
The thing is, you're starting from the constitution of a thing, and progressing from there to whether it's intelligent. I've been following this article that says start with behavior. I'm not seeing why we should start with constitution. Why would we? — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.