Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Thursday, 23-Jan-2025 12:01:24 JST Evan Prodromou

   Wow. Big results. I'm no, but. I think the mind is not a Von Neumann machine, and that intelligence and knowledge are intimately intertwined. But maybe it's theoretically possible to have intelligence decoupled from knowledge.

   • Embed this notice
     M.S. Bellows, Jr. (msbellows@c.im)'s status on Thursday, 23-Jan-2025 12:01:21 JST M.S. Bellows, Jr.

     in reply to

     • bignose

     @bignose @evan But I see what he's saying. Intelligence would be the ability to win any game of chess. But you can't play chess without knowing what the pieces are, ie, knowledge. Knowledge and intelligence dance.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Thursday, 23-Jan-2025 12:01:21 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     • M.S. Bellows, Jr.
     • bignose

     @msbellows @bignose chess is such a great example. Chess players don't learn the basic principles of chess and then work off pure ability. They study to a nauseating degree historical chess games, experimenting with variations. Then when they play their own new games, they reiterate those historical games, sometimes very faithfully, sometimes patching in bits from other games.

   • Embed this notice
     bignose (bignose@sw-development-is.social)'s status on Thursday, 23-Jan-2025 12:01:23 JST bignose

     in reply to

     @evan
     > intelligence and knowledge are intimately intertwined

     Well that's a different proposition.

     Two things can be distinct and also intertwined. Two distinct pieces of twine, for example.

     As another example: The mind is distinct from the brain. Also, they are intimately intertwined.

     Another: The atmosphere is distinct from the tree. Also, they are intimately intertwined.

     If you're reading "yes" as "intelligence and knowledge are not intertwined", you asked the wrong question?

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Thursday, 23-Jan-2025 12:05:11 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     • M.S. Bellows, Jr.
     • bignose

     @bignose @msbellows of course they know what the pieces are and how they work.

     Many chess programs used to work based on rules; most know work through training and retraining. That's knowledge.

   • Embed this notice
     bignose (bignose@sw-development-is.social)'s status on Thursday, 23-Jan-2025 12:05:12 JST bignose

     in reply to

     • M.S. Bellows, Jr.

     @msbellows
     > But you can't play chess without knowing what the pieces are, ie, knowledge.

     I categorically disagree; this has been disproven by the 1980s chess-playing computers.

     I think you would not find that computer has any knowledge of what the pieces in chess are. And yet, they can demonstrably play chess. Is that intelligence?

     @evan

   • Embed this notice
     Lambic (lambic@social.linux.pizza)'s status on Thursday, 23-Jan-2025 12:11:26 JST Lambic

     in reply to

     @evan if you suffered complete amnesia tomorrow but still had your intelligence you could relearn the knowledge you lost.

     An untrained neutral network has intelligence (of a sort) but lacks knowledge until it is trained.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Thursday, 23-Jan-2025 12:38:42 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     • bignose

     @bignose that's the but part.