6 ms·
That's an interesting take, and I can see how "computer" could refer to a human a hundred years ago, but they also mentioned "status quo", which should indicate
by infinite_spin 13d ago
That's an interesting take, and I can see how "computer" could refer to a human a hundred years ago, but they also mentioned "status quo", which should indicate that a reasonable person should use a modern definition.
- quicklime 13d agoAgain I’m not the person who wrote the comment, but I think they were exaggerating for effect and maybe lost the audience in doing so. While “computer” has meant the same thing for many decades now, the term “intelligence” really does seem like a moving goalpost?
- infinite_spin 13d agoI think it's only a moving goalpost if you can show that the goalpost has moved with a new definition that fits our current usage of it. The people saying "this isn't intelligence", and then claim "we don't even know what intelligence is", are encouraged to offer such a definition.
- mitxela 13d agoSeveral decades ago, "computer" was a moving goalpost due to the invention of the electronic computer, and then the digital computer.
- infinite_spin 13d agoyet those movements came with clear definitions. If you have a new definition for intelligence, which isn't just designed as a definitional dodge, then please provide one
- mitxela 13d agoImagine you're the first one to invent a digital electronic computer. You call it a computer, and I go on Tinkerer News and post (by carrier pigeon) "ummm akshully computers are people????" - which one of us would be adding value and which one subtracting it?