3 ms·
We don't need a clear and unambiguous definition of intelligence in order to tell that other human beings are intelligent. The problem here is that not every h
by mojuba 19y ago
We don't need a clear and unambiguous definition of intelligence in order to tell that other human beings are intelligent.
The problem here is that not every human being is intelligent and yes, we are actually trying to define intelligence through IQ tests, for example.
Likewise, we don't need one in order to start trying to create an artifice that impresses us into thinking it also is intelligent.
So when you need accounting software you say: "write me something that will be as clever as my accountant". Is that the way you formulate tasks for software engineers?
- downer 19y ago> we are actually trying to define intelligence through IQ tests, for example Fail. IQ tests only measure how well you do on IQ tests. > The problem here is that not every human being is intelligent Unless they're in a vegetative state, they are more intelligent than any artificial system, so far. > Is that the way you formulate tasks for software engineers? The only way to make a specification so precise that it does exactly what you want is to implement it, and then the code itself becomes the specification.
- mojuba 19y agoSo, what you mean by saying something is more intelligent than something else? What criteria are you using to evaluate that? And yes, it's the way programming works - when you know what you are trying to achieve. Software is about input and output and unless they are deterministic, you can't write code.
- downer 19y ago> So, what you mean by saying something is more intelligent than something else? Obviously people say that all the time despite our lack of a definition for exactly what it is, so we apparently don't need an exact definition. > and unless they are deterministic, you can't write code. You might be interested to know that the behavior of your OS isn't deterministic once you add a second CPU.