9 ms·
In your previous reply you used the word "intelligence" in a manner which had assumptions in it (this is, after all, how humans communicate). "AI" uses the same
by ChoHag 10y ago
In your previous reply you used the word "intelligence" in a manner which had assumptions in it (this is, after all, how humans communicate). "AI" uses the same word with an overlapping but different set of assumptions.
- Mz 10y agoNot that your reply answers my actual question, but I would be interested in knowing what you believe my assumptions were and how these differ from those used in AI. Thanks.
- ChoHag 10y agoI try to avoid making assumptions, including what your assumptions in your definitions of your two uses of the word "intelligence" were. If you used them coherently then that's wonderful but their definitions are not distinct outside your head. Their general (ie. dictionary/scientific) definitions are not absolute. I'm an intelligent person. I know lots of intelligent people who are stupid and I know lots of stupid people who are intelligent. And I'm one of them, and I don't even know which one.
- Mz 10y agoWell, that's a rather weasel-y non-answer answer, but it sounds to me like you think I am calling people "stupid" and that isn't what I am doing. I do know something about the background of intelligence testing and what not for humans. That definition of intelligence is inherently problematic. Again: My point is that people frame things far too often from a third party point of view. This inherently causes problems in decision-making. Sometimes, humans can kind of muddle through anyway, in spite of that default standard. But AI is much less likely to muddle through anyway when coded that way. If you (or anyone) would like to engage that point, awesome! Otherwise, I think I am done here.
- ChoHag 10y agoWhy do you people always feel the need to be offended by stuff? Your point, framed and reframed, is basically sound. Take the word "intelligence" out of it, it doesn't help.