3 ms·

Increasingly I don't think the question of "what is intelligence" is so useful or relevant here. It feels a bit like arguing over whether the "artificial horse"

Increasingly I don't think the question of "what is intelligence" is so useful or relevant here. It feels a bit like arguing over whether the "artificial horse" that started appearing at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th C were actually horses. Cars weren't, and still aren't, but that misses the point. AI isn't intelligent, and never will be, and I don't think that matters all that much.

RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
I think I agree in sentiment, and I'm wondering what your ake is on the article/ current discussions article. I guess my premise is that I don't think we have a useful enough definition of intelligence because the ones I see people writing articles on seem to be dependent or defined by agency, and specifically humanish forms of agency. So I guess your point would be "these systems aren't intelligent, but that's not relevant"? I suppose I out the issue at the currency of the definition of intelligence. It's seemed to be very much synonymous with "how humans do things", making it somewhat impossible to give charity to the arguments presented in this paper with the caveats on "not anthropomorphising". Like I can't compare these two things if your definition of intelligence is fundementally based on what "Anthros" do or do not do and simultaneously not engage in anthropromorism. To follow on your point, if these things aren't displaying "intelligence", but that's also not the point, what then are they displaying? It seems to me this is a failure of introspection on the part of AI philosophy to recognize how limited our understanding of "HI" is.
- anyonecancode 4y ago
  I think the question of "what is intelligence" is an interesting one, and technology (especially computer technology) gives us some interesting angles to look at it, but I think it dominates the conversation disproportionately to its importance. Things like ChatGPT, and the technologies they presage, will absolutely have a significant impact on society, economics, etc, but getting tangled up in questions of "what is intelligence" impede rather than help us to think through these implications and prepare for them. Put another way -- I do not believe the future holds Blade Runner replicants. If we're not careful, though, it does hold Blade Runner corporations. While, philosophically, it's interesting to ask if androids dream of electric sheep, that question isn't very helpful in trying to nudge the future in a more utopic rather than dystopic direction.

RosanaAnaDana 4y ago

I think I agree in sentiment, and I'm wondering what your ake is on the article/ current discussions article. I guess my premise is that I don't think we have a useful enough definition of intelligence because the ones I see people writing articles on seem to be dependent or defined by agency, and specifically humanish forms of agency. So I guess your point would be "these systems aren't intelligent, but that's not relevant"? I suppose I out the issue at the currency of the definition of intelligence. It's seemed to be very much synonymous with "how humans do things", making it somewhat impossible to give charity to the arguments presented in this paper with the caveats on "not anthropomorphising". Like I can't compare these two things if your definition of intelligence is fundementally based on what "Anthros" do or do not do and simultaneously not engage in anthropromorism. To follow on your point, if these things aren't displaying "intelligence", but that's also not the point, what then are they displaying? It seems to me this is a failure of introspection on the part of AI philosophy to recognize how limited our understanding of "HI" is.

anyonecancode 4y ago
I think the question of "what is intelligence" is an interesting one, and technology (especially computer technology) gives us some interesting angles to look at it, but I think it dominates the conversation disproportionately to its importance. Things like ChatGPT, and the technologies they presage, will absolutely have a significant impact on society, economics, etc, but getting tangled up in questions of "what is intelligence" impede rather than help us to think through these implications and prepare for them. Put another way -- I do not believe the future holds Blade Runner replicants. If we're not careful, though, it does hold Blade Runner corporations. While, philosophically, it's interesting to ask if androids dream of electric sheep, that question isn't very helpful in trying to nudge the future in a more utopic rather than dystopic direction.