4 ms·

> biased to what people perceive as intelligence rather than intelligence itself this statement is only reifying the presupposition that "intelligence" as a pr

> biased to what people perceive as intelligence rather than intelligence itself this statement is only reifying the presupposition that "intelligence" as a property of the universe, any more than something such as "crime" or "mental illness" is a fundamental property and not emergent from culture values and norms. the reason why "AI conservatives" keep moving the goalposts is because it is a myth in the collective consciousness of people who believe that intelligence is fundamentally not something a silicon substrate machine could possess. i think breaking out of the dichotomy of intelligent or unintelligent is necessary for the discussion. a "human level intelligence" is not real, so whatever does "human level intelligence" things is human level intelligence. if it quacks like a duck... it even may be imbued with "subjectivity" if you ask me.

tsimionescu 6y ago
A 'human level intelligence' simply means something that is roughly capable of doing the same things as a human, all at the same time, at least at a pure cognitive level (Stephen Hawking was not physically able to make fire, but that does not disqualify him from being considered a human-level intelligence). At the very least, this involves understanding how to interact with the world, understanding basic physics, being able to create tools to interact with the world, and being able to communicate at least with others of your 'species' about ANY knowledge you have gained (so a crow isn't a human level intelligence, because it is unable to communicate more than a handful of kinds of information). For a machine without a physical realization, this becomes trickier to manage, anf often must rely on also specifically learning human language so that it can be probed aboht its understanding of the world. But if we built a robot that could walk around, gather food, build some tools or shelter, and teach another robot what it discovered, I think most people would be happy to call that AGI, even if it couldn't read Shakespeare and weep.

tsimionescu 6y ago

A 'human level intelligence' simply means something that is roughly capable of doing the same things as a human, all at the same time, at least at a pure cognitive level (Stephen Hawking was not physically able to make fire, but that does not disqualify him from being considered a human-level intelligence). At the very least, this involves understanding how to interact with the world, understanding basic physics, being able to create tools to interact with the world, and being able to communicate at least with others of your 'species' about ANY knowledge you have gained (so a crow isn't a human level intelligence, because it is unable to communicate more than a handful of kinds of information). For a machine without a physical realization, this becomes trickier to manage, anf often must rely on also specifically learning human language so that it can be probed aboht its understanding of the world. But if we built a robot that could walk around, gather food, build some tools or shelter, and teach another robot what it discovered, I think most people would be happy to call that AGI, even if it couldn't read Shakespeare and weep.