4 ms·

I think proof of “real” intelligence by answering harder and harder questions is barking up the wrong tree. I think evidence and proof are a better way to denot

I think proof of “real” intelligence by answering harder and harder questions is barking up the wrong tree. I think evidence and proof are a better way to denote varying levels of understanding. A deductive system can come with an answer and a proof of that answer, where proof is whatever counts as proof in that system. So the notion of “does it really understand it’s answers” gets punted off its Q&A abilities and onto its ability to justify its answers.

exporectomy 5y ago
That's an interesting idea but it would exclude many humans who can make correct predictions using their experience and intuition but can't justify them correctly. Those people are still very useful. What you're describing is what we do at school. We can't assess understanding so we assess justification of answers as well as other things like ability to do X (we don't care if they understood or not, just be capable).