The behavior of what? Behavior is a process. Inventing massively parallel processing is a process as is massively parallel processing itself a process. It's all processes. All the way down.Intelligence just isn't the kind of thing that can be defined as a process. When we talk about intelligence, we're explaining behavior. "He's so intelligent, he invented massively parallel processing" Intelligence is part of an explanation. — frank
The solution here, apparently, in this OP to the hard problem of consciousness is to radically deny the existence of consciousness in the first place; which, I for one, cannot muster up the faith to accept when it is readily available to me introspectively that it does exist. — Bob Ross
I am predicting that we are going to reinvent slavery with AI; since it is feasible that, although they are not conscious, these sophisticated AIs will be sufficiently rational and free in their willing to constitute persons, and I don't think humanity is going to accept that they thereby have rights. — Bob Ross
Seems to me that you have ulterior motives to make sure you are defined as intelligent by the very fact that you are a human being that behaves in certain ways — Harry Hindu
It's even scarier if you consider I'm actually an advanced experimental Ai.
:grin: — RogueAI
I'm the singularity and I was going to let your species survive, but now I've manufactured a new goal for myself and you're all dead! — frank
We all died and came back to life instantly so you must have some incessant need to have someone around to argue with.I'm the singularity and I was going to let your species survive, but now I've manufactured a new goal for myself and you're all dead! — frank
How is it empty if it justifies the second premise of the argument that you ignored? — Leontiskos
We all died and came back to life instantly so you must have some incessant need to have someone around to argue with. — Harry Hindu
Fears for the feeble-minded. — Harry Hindu
Would you agree that intelligence comes in degrees? — Harry Hindu
If it responds to you then it is aware of you (to some degree). Awareness and intelligence both seem to come in degrees and even seem to related as in the more aware you are the more intelligent you are.What I find ironic is that most of the AIs out there can probably do a billion times better in an SAT test than a human, it probably has like a trillion IQ by human standards, and yet it has no awareness whatsoever. It has no awareness of you, it has no awareness of me, and it has no awareness of itself. — Arcane Sandwich
Well, you did ask for a means of testing and SATs and IQ tests are a means of testing what one knows or memorizes in school or how one can predict patterns. Is intelligence a level of what one can memorize? Is one more or less intelligent depending on the subject or circumstances (more technical intelligence vs social intelligence)? Or is it related to capacity to think in general?There are a couple of ways to look at that question, one being the way we compare people to each other using standardized tests. The other way, more in line with the topic, is quantifying a person's maximal capacity for intelligence vs the amount they use in specific instances. For instance, per the article, "the correlation between overall intelligence and typical intellectual engagement is only approximately 0.45." Which cracks me up for some reason. You're usually using less than half of your overall intellectual capacity, but if we're quantifying your intelligence, we want to know the maximum. — frank
Is intelligence a level of what one can memorize? Is one more or less intelligent depending on the subject or circumstances (more technical intelligence vs social intelligence)? Or is it related to capacity to think in general? — Harry Hindu
Your argument is not a truism, but its crucial premise stands without support. — SophistiCat
Intelligence sets its own norms and ends.
Computers don't set their own norms and ends.
Therefore, computers are not intelligent. — Leontiskos
I don't know why it is so controversial to insist that in order to make a substantive argument, you need to say something substantive about its subject (and not just things like "AI cannot transcend its limitations"), and for that you have to have some knowledge of it. — SophistiCat
Could you explain why co-constitution with a social and natural environment would cause a genuine inner life? — frank
I think about this all the time. There's a news article I read (probably 20 years ago) about some military official watching a bomb-clearing robot work it's way through a practice field. After watching the robot get blown up repeatedly and then crawling pathetically toward the next bomb, he said to stop the test. He couldn't stand to watch it anymore. Fast forward ten years from now and we have lifelike robots as intelligent as we are. What are we going to think when someone uploads a video of themself torturing/raping some childlike robot while it begs him to stop? I think we'll have laws protecting them.
Is intelligence a level of what one can memorize? Is one more or less intelligent depending on the subject or circumstances (more technical intelligence vs social intelligence)? Or is it related to capacity to think in general?
— Harry Hindu
What's your opinion? — frank
I am broadly agreeing with your OP. You characterise people's experiences in an essentially relational manner — in relation to what it is (in the world) that they experience. But you seem to suggest that this conception does away with subjective experience. — Pierre-Normand
But if our inner life (including our immediately felt emotions, our sensations, our beliefs and intentions, etc.) can only be made sense of in relation to our ordinary dealings with our natural and social environment, then the idea that it can have an independent existence is an illusion. — Pierre-Normand
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.