6 ms·

So you are defining intelligence to be whatever the brain does? That is certainly a philosophical position.

qsort 6y ago
"Intelligence" is a word that, etymologically and semantically, is related to human or human-like capabilities. You wouldn't say that a leaf floating on a lake is swimming, and likewise, claiming that computers are "learning" or "intelligent" is at best a thin analogy and at worst a mischaracterization of the process. What's happening in my brain is something we don't have full scientific knowledge of, but we know it's not x86 machine code. While the two processes may be in many ways similar, conflating the two into this ill-defined concept of "intelligence" is a discussion about semantics more than anything else.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  > "Intelligence" is a word that, etymologically and semantically, is related to human or human-like capabilities. You wouldn't say that a leaf floating on a lake is swimming. The definition of words changes in response to increasing knowledge - just take 'energy' for example. One cannot establish truths about the world by arguments from usage. (On the other hand, to be clear, I do not think that the current state of AI merits being called "intelligence". What happens in the future is speculation.) > What's happening in my brain is something we don't have full scientific knowledge of, but we know it's not x86 machine code. The introduction of x86 machine code at this point seems to be moving away from your original claims about "AI" being "just" relatively simple (though not simply linear) mathematical models, which are not "just" machine code either. The interesting (and very much open) question is how much of intelligence can be modeled in this way, and what else, if anything, is necessary. The more you stress the simplicity of these models, the more intriguing their achievements seem.
  - qsort 6y ago
    > The definition of words changes in response to increasing knowledge The usual process in mathematics and science is that you have a phenomenon that everyone agree exists but nobody can quite put their finger on it, so someone proposes a formal definition and if that definition turns out to be adequate, people work on the formal definition, and that's much easier because you now can use math, statistics, formal methods, etc; a prime example of this is the notion of "computability". I don't believe that we are seeing the same thing with the concept of "intelligence", this is probably in part because it's much harder to capture the concept in a formal definition. Computers do computable stuff. Overlapping that notion with "intelligence" serves no purpose in my opinion: it explains nothing, it doesn't clarify anything, and it's certainly not obvious that the two are related. > which are not "just" machine code either I'm using "machine code" as proxy for "instructions/lambdas/whatever for a computational model of your choice", which they certainly are. > The more you stress the simplicity of these models, the more intriguing their achievements seem. It's not my intention to downplay any of the achievements of "AI". They are certainly not less intriguing when viewed from my perspective, the same way a compiler is not less intriguing if you think it's "just code". My point is that any association of a formal concept (math, models, etc.) with philosophical concepts (intelligence, "truths about the world", consciousness, etc.) is always on thin ice, because natural language and formal concepts are hard to mix. Especially so when the concepts at play are so ephemeral.
    - Retric 6y ago
      People learn to hit a target by changing the structure of their brain to fit the task. Computers become better at hitting a target by changing a data structure. That seems directly analogous to me. Critically, learning doesn’t imply the ability to perfectly execute the task.
      - qsort 6y ago
        I could not imagine two things that are more unrelated.
        Retric 6y ago
        In what ways are they unrelated? Learning is just another activity that people do. Like sleeping or assembling ikea furniture.
    - mannykannot 6y ago
      Your response on definitions actually supports my point on the matter: definitions follow from knowledge ("a phenomenon that everyone agree exists") and are modified in response to new knowledge ("if that definition turns out to be adequate..." - and if not?) As before, "energy" stands as an example of how it works, and "computability" did not enter the lexicon until there was a use for it. Nevertheless, I agree that in the specific case of current AI, using the word "intelligence" is misleading. I do not, however, think this misuse has any serious consequences, as, to reverse how I put it before, usage does not establish truths about the world. >> which are not "just" machine code either > I'm using "machine code" as proxy for "instructions/lambdas/whatever for a computational model of your choice", which they certainly are. Then that is an unfortunate choice of proxy, unless, perhaps, you intended to imply that it is a priori impossible for intelligence to be created by running x86 machine code. It was not clear to me whether, by introducing machine code into the discussion, you were not making some sort of argument from incredulity against the possibility of AI. > My point is that any association of a formal concept (math, models, etc.) with philosophical concepts (intelligence, "truths about the world", consciousness, etc.) is always on thin ice, because natural language and formal concepts are hard to mix. Especially so when the concepts at play are so ephemeral. At least since Newton, mathematical models have proved very useful in discerning truths about the world. Are we to just assume they will not work for the biological phenomena of intelligence and consciousness?
rtx 6y ago
AI isn't intelligent, its something created by intelligence.

"Intelligence" is a word that, etymologically and semantically, is related to human or human-like capabilities. You wouldn't say that a leaf floating on a lake is swimming, and likewise, claiming that computers are "learning" or "intelligent" is at best a thin analogy and at worst a mischaracterization of the process. What's happening in my brain is something we don't have full scientific knowledge of, but we know it's not x86 machine code. While the two processes may be in many ways similar, conflating the two into this ill-defined concept of "intelligence" is a discussion about semantics more than anything else.

mannykannot 6y ago
> "Intelligence" is a word that, etymologically and semantically, is related to human or human-like capabilities. You wouldn't say that a leaf floating on a lake is swimming. The definition of words changes in response to increasing knowledge - just take 'energy' for example. One cannot establish truths about the world by arguments from usage. (On the other hand, to be clear, I do not think that the current state of AI merits being called "intelligence". What happens in the future is speculation.) > What's happening in my brain is something we don't have full scientific knowledge of, but we know it's not x86 machine code. The introduction of x86 machine code at this point seems to be moving away from your original claims about "AI" being "just" relatively simple (though not simply linear) mathematical models, which are not "just" machine code either. The interesting (and very much open) question is how much of intelligence can be modeled in this way, and what else, if anything, is necessary. The more you stress the simplicity of these models, the more intriguing their achievements seem.
- qsort 6y ago
  > The definition of words changes in response to increasing knowledge The usual process in mathematics and science is that you have a phenomenon that everyone agree exists but nobody can quite put their finger on it, so someone proposes a formal definition and if that definition turns out to be adequate, people work on the formal definition, and that's much easier because you now can use math, statistics, formal methods, etc; a prime example of this is the notion of "computability". I don't believe that we are seeing the same thing with the concept of "intelligence", this is probably in part because it's much harder to capture the concept in a formal definition. Computers do computable stuff. Overlapping that notion with "intelligence" serves no purpose in my opinion: it explains nothing, it doesn't clarify anything, and it's certainly not obvious that the two are related. > which are not "just" machine code either I'm using "machine code" as proxy for "instructions/lambdas/whatever for a computational model of your choice", which they certainly are. > The more you stress the simplicity of these models, the more intriguing their achievements seem. It's not my intention to downplay any of the achievements of "AI". They are certainly not less intriguing when viewed from my perspective, the same way a compiler is not less intriguing if you think it's "just code". My point is that any association of a formal concept (math, models, etc.) with philosophical concepts (intelligence, "truths about the world", consciousness, etc.) is always on thin ice, because natural language and formal concepts are hard to mix. Especially so when the concepts at play are so ephemeral.
  - Retric 6y ago
    People learn to hit a target by changing the structure of their brain to fit the task. Computers become better at hitting a target by changing a data structure. That seems directly analogous to me. Critically, learning doesn’t imply the ability to perfectly execute the task.
    - qsort 6y ago
      I could not imagine two things that are more unrelated.
      - Retric 6y ago
        In what ways are they unrelated? Learning is just another activity that people do. Like sleeping or assembling ikea furniture.
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    Your response on definitions actually supports my point on the matter: definitions follow from knowledge ("a phenomenon that everyone agree exists") and are modified in response to new knowledge ("if that definition turns out to be adequate..." - and if not?) As before, "energy" stands as an example of how it works, and "computability" did not enter the lexicon until there was a use for it. Nevertheless, I agree that in the specific case of current AI, using the word "intelligence" is misleading. I do not, however, think this misuse has any serious consequences, as, to reverse how I put it before, usage does not establish truths about the world. >> which are not "just" machine code either > I'm using "machine code" as proxy for "instructions/lambdas/whatever for a computational model of your choice", which they certainly are. Then that is an unfortunate choice of proxy, unless, perhaps, you intended to imply that it is a priori impossible for intelligence to be created by running x86 machine code. It was not clear to me whether, by introducing machine code into the discussion, you were not making some sort of argument from incredulity against the possibility of AI. > My point is that any association of a formal concept (math, models, etc.) with philosophical concepts (intelligence, "truths about the world", consciousness, etc.) is always on thin ice, because natural language and formal concepts are hard to mix. Especially so when the concepts at play are so ephemeral. At least since Newton, mathematical models have proved very useful in discerning truths about the world. Are we to just assume they will not work for the biological phenomena of intelligence and consciousness?

rtx 6y ago

AI isn't intelligent, its something created by intelligence.