3 ms·
> The ability to create novel solutions without a priori knowledge. If you go by that then a lot of people (no offense) aren't intelligent. This includes many
by re-thc 2y ago
> The ability to create novel solutions without a priori knowledge.
If you go by that then a lot of people (no offense) aren't intelligent. This includes many vastly successful or rich people.
So I disagree. There's a lot of ways to be intelligent. Not just the research and scientific type.
- collingreen 2y agoIt takes novel solutions to walk down the street, interact with folks, dodge random incoming obstacles, respond to comments, and a bazillion other things almost everyone does all the time. I probably agree that most people aren't engaged very often and even when they are they suck at being awesome but that really isn't the bar being mentioned here.
- re-thc 2y ago> It takes novel solutions to Right > but that really isn't the bar being mentioned here. Yes, the bar was "novel solutions WITHOUT priori knowledge" So you've changed the definition. Please re-read what I disagree with and it's not just the novel part i.e. if I read it all from the Internet and copied it to be successful then that fails this definition.
- stavros 2y agoLLMs can interact with folks and respond to comments, which are the things on that list you should judge someone without a physical presence on.
- bawolff 2y ago> If you go by that then a lot of people (no offense) aren't intelligent. This includes many vastly successful or rich people. I think most people agree with this statement.
- skydhash 2y agoCreating novel solutions have nothing to do with academic. Almost everyone encounters unexpected situations, that they have to think about to solve. It may not been novel as a whole, but for the person, it is.