undefined

points

[-]

Intelligence is a word we invent to describe things we see in nature. We don't "discover" intelligence like it's some natural resource. To say we know nothing about it is also a bit strange. Cognitive science has been studying it for decades. Of course it's hard to give a precise definition, but it's related to capabilities like abstraction, reasoning, planning, problem solving, etc.

by 4fddd311 minutes ago|

prev|

[-]

What we know is intelligence is definitely comprised of the trait of adaptability.

E.g. humans get exposed to new LLM model - yeah its powerful - 1 week later - eh, that thing? Yeah it's whatever. I'm still employed.

The human's ability to adapt so efficiently is mind-boggling - so much so it pi1sses sam altman and dario off.

by infinite_spin2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Why would a set of dictionary definitions not suffice?

by mitxela2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Those are distillations of existing knowledge. They are necessarily behind the status quo. "You can't call this newfangled contraption a computer, because a computer is a person!"

by handoflixue1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> They are necessarily behind the status quo.

That seems like a really bizarre way to describe a tool that solved an open Millennium Prize Problem. They are, empirically and repeatedly, ahead of the status quo.

So if your argument depends on them being behind the status quo, reality has already disproven it multiple times over.

by mitxela8 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

I wasn't aware a dictionary definition solved a Millennium Prize problem. Which one and how?

by infinite_spin2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> Those are distillations of existing knowledge.

Definitions are "formal statements of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/definition)

> They are necessarily behind the status quo.

The existing state or condition would be what is written in the dictionary, not whatever personal definitions you've constructed.

> "You can't call this newfangled contraption a computer, because a computer is a person!"

Seems like a straw man. A computer is not a mammal, no matter how much you twist a set of definitions.

by quicklime1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> A computer is not a mammal, no matter how much you twist a set of definitions.

I’m not the person you replied to, but I believe they’re referring to the occupation of “computer”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)

So yes, at one time all computers were mammals.

The people who write dictionaries generally take a descriptivist approach, that’s why slang terms enter the dictionary after they start to become popular.

The state of the art of human knowledge would be another step ahead of the common use of any language.

by infinite_spin1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That's an interesting take, and I can see how "computer" could refer to a human a hundred years ago, but they also mentioned "status quo", which should indicate that a reasonable person should use a modern definition.

by mitxela7 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Imagine you're the first one to invent a digital electronic computer. You call it a computer, and I go on Tinkerer News and post (by carrier pigeon) "ummm akshully computers are people????" - which one of us would be adding value and which one subtracting it?

by quicklime50 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Again I’m not the person who wrote the comment, but I think they were exaggerating for effect and maybe lost the audience in doing so. While “computer” has meant the same thing for many decades now, the term “intelligence” really does seem like a moving goalpost?

by infinite_spin21 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

I think it's only a moving goalpost if you can show that the goalpost has moved with a new definition that fits our current usage of it. The people saying "this isn't intelligence", and then claim "we don't even know what intelligence is", are encouraged to offer such a definition.