Tom Ritchford
@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.
Rich Felker
@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.
Tom Ritchford
@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.
Mallory's Musings & Mischief
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
Rich Felker
@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).
Rich Felker
@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.
Rich Felker
@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*.
Tom Ritchford
@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!
Tom Ritchford
@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/
Tom Ritchford
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/
Mallory's Musings & Mischief
JFC, you're attacking us with the *dictionary definition* of the word? Lololololol
Tom Ritchford
> 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".
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.