4 ms·

There are going to be gray areas of course, but the point I'm making is that if it's hard to argue something isn't flying (respectively, intelligent) then it's

There are going to be gray areas of course, but the point I'm making is that if it's hard to argue something isn't flying (respectively, intelligent) then it's probably flying (resp. intelligent). If it's hard to tell then it's probably not. I'm suggesting that intelligence, like flying, should be very immediately obvious. For example, you can't miss the fact that a five-year old child is intelligent and you can't miss the fact that a stone is not. There may be all sorts of things in between for which we can't be sure, or whose intelligence depends on definition, or point of view, etc. but when something is intelligent then it should leave us no doubt that it is. Or, if you want to see it this way: if something is as intelligent as a five-year old child then it should leave us no doubt that it is. I'm basically arguing for placing the bar high enough that when it is passed, we can be fairly certain we're not mistaken. >> I can't disagree more. Or maybe I actually agree. I find myself in that disposition often :)

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
> when something is intelligent then it should leave us no doubt that it is. I strongly disagree. There are many reasons we might not recognize its intelligence, such as: - it operates on a different timescale than we do. - it operates at a different size scale than we do. - we don't understand its language, its methods, or its goals - Cartesian-like ideological blindness ("only humans have experience, all other things are automata, no matter how much they seem otherwise") Throughout human history, certain people have even managed to doubt the intelligence of other groups of humans.
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  Except for "Cartesian blindness" (an interesting term) the situations where you say we wouldn't recognise intelligence are so far fantastical in the sense that they require a kind of intelligence that we can only imagine might exist outside the realm of our experience. But why should current debate have anything to do with all those situations? By analogy, suppose there exists a race of alien birds on a faraway planet that can fly in a way that we wouldn't recognise as flying. Perhaps they have an antigravity gland or poop exotic matter that sticks to their butts and lets them move around without touching the ground. Does that affect our ability to recognise flight when we see it on Earth? I don't think so. When you see e.g. an eagle, fly, you know it's flying, regardless of whether anything else is, or might be conceived as, flying, or not. Equally, does the possibility of an alien intelligence like no intelligence we have ever seen before make any difference to how we recognise intelligence here on Earth and right now? The debate is about the intelligence of computers. Should we consider the possibility that computers are about to develop an alien kind of intelligence like no intelligence we have ever seen? I know there's such a current of thought in various circles but it doesn't seem to be based on anything but wishful thinking (or dreadful thinking?). As to "Cartesian blindness" and racism etc - science is self-correcting. Even if we spend some time confused about what is and isn't intelligence, we get there in the end. The question is how we identify intelligence in the here and now, with what we know and understand about the world in the present.
  - persnickety 2y ago
    I think it does matter that we admit other kinds of flying or intelligence because then we allow the possibility of having a blind spot. We already have alien intelligences on this planet that are not often getting invoked in discussions of the possible unfamiliarity of the difference of computers. Let's take the octopus distributed thinking or the hive's collective intelligence. They could shine a light on how computers do or don't work, yet how many people are holding the torch? I think self-correcting of science can be nice, but the acknowledge of racism operates on cultural scales of decades and centuries. The corrected discussions are likely to appear long after computer thinking breakthroughs which happen on the scale of years to decades. So you're right, but that doesn't matter today. But I admit I'm not sure if that's what you meant here.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
      >> They could shine a light on how computers do or don't work, yet how many people are holding the torch? Scant few, unfortunately. I think in the AI community there is a general agreement that bees and ants have some kind of intelligence but I don't see anyone doing much about it, like using it as a model for AI (although note e.g. Ant Colony Optimisation and other biologically inspired algorithms). For example, I have seriously considered applying for funding for a project titled "Arthropod-Like Intelligence" that would seek to create an artificial agent (a robot of some sort) with autonomous capabilities at the level of a spider. Unfortunately, every time I start to write up the proposal I immediately imagine the ridicule it -and I- would be subjected to by any funding committee and fellow researchers in AI and I give up. So yes, the current agreement about what counts as intelligence is limiting to the advancement of science. But there is some progress, slow as it is- thanks to people bolder than myself. With octopi I think it's a different matter. People generally don't get to see how octopi behave. Once they're shown examples, like in videos etc, I think most are convinced. So it's more an element of surprise, rather than a real resistance to the idea. I think the debate is more on different aspects of let's say broader cognition, like self-awareness, the ability to feel pain, etc. Again I think the safe bet here is to adopt the default position that all animals are intelligent, self-aware and can feel pain, since there's no reason that humans should be special in that respect. But, really, it's not my field so my opinion doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. >> The corrected discussions are likely to appear long after computer thinking breakthroughs which happen on the scale of years to decades. Yeah, unfortunately science takes a very long time. But it works in the end and there's no better way we know. I don't guess I have to argue about that though.
famouswaffles 2y ago
>but when something is intelligent then it should leave us no doubt that it is. Not that long ago, a whole lot of humans (the majority in some continents) asserted other a group of other humans were not intelligent so strongly they purchased them as property and treated them worse than even farm animals, so i think you can basically throw this one out the window.
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  Who said that slaves weren't intelligent? I know they were probably treated as subhuman, but as not having intelligence? Like a rock or a piece of wood? I don't believe that was the case. What probably happened, and still happens, is that some people underestimate the intelligence of other people and think they're not as intelligent as themselves, not that they don't have intelligence.
  - famouswaffles 2y ago
    I'm not sure why a rock or piece of wood is the bar here. The fact is nearly no-one in the Americas would call or describe Sub-Saharan Africans as Intelligent. Thomas Jefferson who generally seemed to oppose slavery says this in his book, "Notes on the State of Virginia" (1785): "In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection." "Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous." Doesn't even sound like he's talking about the same species. We can scarcely agree on the intelligence of other humans. Let's not even get into the topic of animals. So the idea that intelligence will manifest and we'll all just see it and agree...Yeah No.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
      >> "Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous." He's saying they're of inferior "reasoning" (but equal in memory). That's hardly saying they're not intelligent or recognising them as not intelligent. I don't think you will find anyone saying what you think someone's saying. "Not intelligent" is indeed a rock or a piece of wood. "Inferior" is a different concept. "Inferior", "sub-human", "feeble-minded", sure, people keep saying things like that for other humans. But, "not intelligent" in the sense of "can't use language", "can't use tools", "can't tie own shoelaces", that would be very hard to maintain in the face of very easy to make observations. Which, you know, is exactly my point. Are you using "intelligent" to mean "very smart" or something similar? That's not what I'm saying. I'm really just pointing to the difference between 0 intelligence, like a rock, and undeniable intelligence, like a 5-year old child.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

> when something is intelligent then it should leave us no doubt that it is. I strongly disagree. There are many reasons we might not recognize its intelligence, such as: - it operates on a different timescale than we do. - it operates at a different size scale than we do. - we don't understand its language, its methods, or its goals - Cartesian-like ideological blindness ("only humans have experience, all other things are automata, no matter how much they seem otherwise") Throughout human history, certain people have even managed to doubt the intelligence of other groups of humans.

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
Except for "Cartesian blindness" (an interesting term) the situations where you say we wouldn't recognise intelligence are so far fantastical in the sense that they require a kind of intelligence that we can only imagine might exist outside the realm of our experience. But why should current debate have anything to do with all those situations? By analogy, suppose there exists a race of alien birds on a faraway planet that can fly in a way that we wouldn't recognise as flying. Perhaps they have an antigravity gland or poop exotic matter that sticks to their butts and lets them move around without touching the ground. Does that affect our ability to recognise flight when we see it on Earth? I don't think so. When you see e.g. an eagle, fly, you know it's flying, regardless of whether anything else is, or might be conceived as, flying, or not. Equally, does the possibility of an alien intelligence like no intelligence we have ever seen before make any difference to how we recognise intelligence here on Earth and right now? The debate is about the intelligence of computers. Should we consider the possibility that computers are about to develop an alien kind of intelligence like no intelligence we have ever seen? I know there's such a current of thought in various circles but it doesn't seem to be based on anything but wishful thinking (or dreadful thinking?). As to "Cartesian blindness" and racism etc - science is self-correcting. Even if we spend some time confused about what is and isn't intelligence, we get there in the end. The question is how we identify intelligence in the here and now, with what we know and understand about the world in the present.
- persnickety 2y ago
  I think it does matter that we admit other kinds of flying or intelligence because then we allow the possibility of having a blind spot. We already have alien intelligences on this planet that are not often getting invoked in discussions of the possible unfamiliarity of the difference of computers. Let's take the octopus distributed thinking or the hive's collective intelligence. They could shine a light on how computers do or don't work, yet how many people are holding the torch? I think self-correcting of science can be nice, but the acknowledge of racism operates on cultural scales of decades and centuries. The corrected discussions are likely to appear long after computer thinking breakthroughs which happen on the scale of years to decades. So you're right, but that doesn't matter today. But I admit I'm not sure if that's what you meant here.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
    >> They could shine a light on how computers do or don't work, yet how many people are holding the torch? Scant few, unfortunately. I think in the AI community there is a general agreement that bees and ants have some kind of intelligence but I don't see anyone doing much about it, like using it as a model for AI (although note e.g. Ant Colony Optimisation and other biologically inspired algorithms). For example, I have seriously considered applying for funding for a project titled "Arthropod-Like Intelligence" that would seek to create an artificial agent (a robot of some sort) with autonomous capabilities at the level of a spider. Unfortunately, every time I start to write up the proposal I immediately imagine the ridicule it -and I- would be subjected to by any funding committee and fellow researchers in AI and I give up. So yes, the current agreement about what counts as intelligence is limiting to the advancement of science. But there is some progress, slow as it is- thanks to people bolder than myself. With octopi I think it's a different matter. People generally don't get to see how octopi behave. Once they're shown examples, like in videos etc, I think most are convinced. So it's more an element of surprise, rather than a real resistance to the idea. I think the debate is more on different aspects of let's say broader cognition, like self-awareness, the ability to feel pain, etc. Again I think the safe bet here is to adopt the default position that all animals are intelligent, self-aware and can feel pain, since there's no reason that humans should be special in that respect. But, really, it's not my field so my opinion doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. >> The corrected discussions are likely to appear long after computer thinking breakthroughs which happen on the scale of years to decades. Yeah, unfortunately science takes a very long time. But it works in the end and there's no better way we know. I don't guess I have to argue about that though.

famouswaffles 2y ago

>but when something is intelligent then it should leave us no doubt that it is. Not that long ago, a whole lot of humans (the majority in some continents) asserted other a group of other humans were not intelligent so strongly they purchased them as property and treated them worse than even farm animals, so i think you can basically throw this one out the window.

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
Who said that slaves weren't intelligent? I know they were probably treated as subhuman, but as not having intelligence? Like a rock or a piece of wood? I don't believe that was the case. What probably happened, and still happens, is that some people underestimate the intelligence of other people and think they're not as intelligent as themselves, not that they don't have intelligence.
- famouswaffles 2y ago
  I'm not sure why a rock or piece of wood is the bar here. The fact is nearly no-one in the Americas would call or describe Sub-Saharan Africans as Intelligent. Thomas Jefferson who generally seemed to oppose slavery says this in his book, "Notes on the State of Virginia" (1785): "In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection." "Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous." Doesn't even sound like he's talking about the same species. We can scarcely agree on the intelligence of other humans. Let's not even get into the topic of animals. So the idea that intelligence will manifest and we'll all just see it and agree...Yeah No.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
    >> "Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous." He's saying they're of inferior "reasoning" (but equal in memory). That's hardly saying they're not intelligent or recognising them as not intelligent. I don't think you will find anyone saying what you think someone's saying. "Not intelligent" is indeed a rock or a piece of wood. "Inferior" is a different concept. "Inferior", "sub-human", "feeble-minded", sure, people keep saying things like that for other humans. But, "not intelligent" in the sense of "can't use language", "can't use tools", "can't tie own shoelaces", that would be very hard to maintain in the face of very easy to make observations. Which, you know, is exactly my point. Are you using "intelligent" to mean "very smart" or something similar? That's not what I'm saying. I'm really just pointing to the difference between 0 intelligence, like a rock, and undeniable intelligence, like a 5-year old child.