3 ms·
stop repeating that. first, it isn't true that intelligence is barely defined. https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639 https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639 second a definit
by nh23423fefe 1y ago
stop repeating that. first, it isn't true that intelligence is barely defined. https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639 https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639
second a definition is obviously not a prerequisite as evidenced by natural selection
- mathgradthrow 1y agoAn Arxiv paper listing 70 different definitions of intelligence is not the evidence that you seem to think it is.
- nh23423fefe 1y agoyes it is
- thomasdziedzic 1y ago> stop repeating that. first, it isn't true that intelligence is barely defined. https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639 https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639 I don't think he should stop, because I think he's right. We lack a definition of intelligence that doesn't do a lot of hand waving. You linked to a paper with 18 collective definitions, 35 psychologist definitions, and 18 ai researcher definitions of intelligence. And the conclusion of the paper was that they came up with their own definition of intelligence. That is not a definition in my book. > second a definition is obviously not a prerequisite as evidenced by natural selection right, we just need a universe, several billions of years and sprinkle some evolution and we'll also get intelligence, maybe.
- nh23423fefe 1y agocool, you can move goalposts and claim no true scotsman would define intelligence that way; in addition you are confusing sufficient and necessary.