> We won't consider machines intelligent until they have and demonstrate the capacity to consider us not-intelligent. I don't think it needs to go that far. Bi

> We won't consider machines intelligent until they have and demonstrate the capacity to consider us not-intelligent. I don't think it needs to go that far. Birds that can solve simple puzzles are obviously intelligent, so are cats who can open doors, etc. I think the human perception if intelligence is hugely based on the notion of, "is this thing self-aware?" or "is there someone in there?", "does it have a mind of its own?" I would say we'll consider machines intelligent when they're able to have some amount of independence. Right now, they can't solve problems they're not specifically designed/engineered to solve. We don't have any kind of general-purpose artificial intelligence. You might try to argue that reinforcement learning is that, but no, RL doesn't really work outside of a sandbox with an artificial reward function, and it's very sensitive to hyper-parameters. If you could have a chat bot that can pass the Turing Test with a high degree of success, I think most people would consider that intelligent. Same thing for a robot that can do your laundry, wash your dishes and make some mac and cheese without days of training and without fucking up more than a typical human child would.