3 ms·

>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) asse

>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.
    - famouswaffles 2y ago
      Well you say, if we're arguing whether it's intelligent or not, it probably isn't. Ok i guess the argument then...So what are these obvious signs of Intelligence the machines in question are not displaying? From the few you gave as example, "can't use language" - Obviously not a problem "can't use tools" - Digital tools, Some physical tools is certainly possible today "can't tie own shoelaces" - Don't know any animal that can do this and animals pass your bar of intelligence. Sure we're having endless arguments about the Intelligence of Sota LLMs today but almost none of it has anything to do with observable, testable capabilities. In other words, the problem of these debates isn't that people are disagreeing seeing both the bird and plane have willful sustained airtime (aka flying). It's that they've seen both and decided for entirely arbitrary reasons to label one, "real flying" and the other, "fake flying". And if you then ask the reasonable question, "Which properties separate the so called 'real flight' from 'fake flight' and how do we test for it?", then nobody seems to have any clue.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
        Above you're arguing for one side of the debate. I'm arguing that as long as there is a debate the safest bet is to adopt the default, null position: it's not flying; it's not intelligent. To summarise my argument again: if we can all agree that something is intelligent, then it probably is. If we can't, then it probably isn't, especially, I would add, if there is substantial disagreement. One motivation for this is to avoid an unending quest for the right definition. Once we can all agree what (artificial) intelligence is, it will be much easier to agree to a definition. But while we're all looking at the same thing and can't agree on what it is, how can we agree on a definition, and then use it to support one or the other side of the debate? Take human intelligence. I don't think anyone seriously doubts that humans are intelligent, except perhaps for the purpose of being contrary, or being a philosopher[1]. We may not know what "intelligent" means, but we can agree that whatever it is, it's something that humans have. Yes, that's an arbitrary decision, but as long as we can agree on it, it doesn't matter that it's arbitrary: it matters that there is consensus, based on common experience, and we all know what we're talking about. We can't get to a definition of a phenomenon before we all agree that it is there: we all agreed that fire is fire, water is water and ice is ice, a long time before we had any sort of commonly agreed definitions of them. "I can't put my finger on it but I know it when I see it"- that's a very simple way to avoid discussions that lead nowhere. And there are way too many discussion that lead nowhere in AI. Edit: btw, in research the discussions are much more focused. E.g. "LLMs can plan": that's a concrete, testable claim. No reason to define intelligence to resolve it. Much more progress is made this way than by endlessly chasing our tails about what is or isn't intelligent. ___________ [1] The purpose of science is to pose questions and answer them. The purpose of philosophy is to pose questions and question them.

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.
  - famouswaffles 2y ago
    Well you say, if we're arguing whether it's intelligent or not, it probably isn't. Ok i guess the argument then...So what are these obvious signs of Intelligence the machines in question are not displaying? From the few you gave as example, "can't use language" - Obviously not a problem "can't use tools" - Digital tools, Some physical tools is certainly possible today "can't tie own shoelaces" - Don't know any animal that can do this and animals pass your bar of intelligence. Sure we're having endless arguments about the Intelligence of Sota LLMs today but almost none of it has anything to do with observable, testable capabilities. In other words, the problem of these debates isn't that people are disagreeing seeing both the bird and plane have willful sustained airtime (aka flying). It's that they've seen both and decided for entirely arbitrary reasons to label one, "real flying" and the other, "fake flying". And if you then ask the reasonable question, "Which properties separate the so called 'real flight' from 'fake flight' and how do we test for it?", then nobody seems to have any clue.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
      Above you're arguing for one side of the debate. I'm arguing that as long as there is a debate the safest bet is to adopt the default, null position: it's not flying; it's not intelligent. To summarise my argument again: if we can all agree that something is intelligent, then it probably is. If we can't, then it probably isn't, especially, I would add, if there is substantial disagreement. One motivation for this is to avoid an unending quest for the right definition. Once we can all agree what (artificial) intelligence is, it will be much easier to agree to a definition. But while we're all looking at the same thing and can't agree on what it is, how can we agree on a definition, and then use it to support one or the other side of the debate? Take human intelligence. I don't think anyone seriously doubts that humans are intelligent, except perhaps for the purpose of being contrary, or being a philosopher[1]. We may not know what "intelligent" means, but we can agree that whatever it is, it's something that humans have. Yes, that's an arbitrary decision, but as long as we can agree on it, it doesn't matter that it's arbitrary: it matters that there is consensus, based on common experience, and we all know what we're talking about. We can't get to a definition of a phenomenon before we all agree that it is there: we all agreed that fire is fire, water is water and ice is ice, a long time before we had any sort of commonly agreed definitions of them. "I can't put my finger on it but I know it when I see it"- that's a very simple way to avoid discussions that lead nowhere. And there are way too many discussion that lead nowhere in AI. Edit: btw, in research the discussions are much more focused. E.g. "LLMs can plan": that's a concrete, testable claim. No reason to define intelligence to resolve it. Much more progress is made this way than by endlessly chasing our tails about what is or isn't intelligent. ___________ [1] The purpose of science is to pose questions and answer them. The purpose of philosophy is to pose questions and question them.