2 ms·
You personally believe we shouldn’t use the word “intelligence” in these contexts? Okay — then why even make the comment in the first place? You clearly meant
by bopbeepboop 6y ago
You personally believe we shouldn’t use the word “intelligence” in these contexts?
Okay — then why even make the comment in the first place?
You clearly meant something by “intelligence != universal approximator”, but you’re unwilling to provide any semantics to back that up.
Go ahead and define it: how do you mean that statement?
I think you’re just too embarrassed to admit you said a personal view that’s wrong.
- qsort 6y agoI'm going to apply the HN rulebook and assume you are in good faith even though I'm almost certain that you are not. I'm using "intelligence" in the sense of "thing that a layman who doesn't know what compact convergence or lebesgue integrable means would recognize as intelligent". A layman would not call such an agent, by itself, intelligent. I'm advocating avoiding the use of "intelligence" precisely to avoid this kind of conversation.
- bopbeepboop 6y agoI am replying in good faith. Can you give an example of a "thing that a layman who doesn't know what compact convergence or lebesgue integrable means would recognize as intelligent" which can’t be modeled by universal approximators? Not just due to scaling. I think you’re advocating avoiding the use of “intelligence” as a duck of your comment about intelligence and approximators just being wrong.