intelligence

[-1-]

What about poetry? A computer could look up words that rhyme and use them correctly, but could it write poetry that touches the heart? Not now and not likely ever, because good poetry isn’t formulaic.

Good poetry is not formulaic. That explains why only one in a thousand humans -- nay, only one in a hundred million humans can write good poetry, too. I mean, of the calibre that they teach in high school and in English honours degree courses at uni.

And I believe AI will be able to write poetry that touches the heart, but there won't be intention behind it... pure chance, but chance increased by choosing the right words.

In "1984" there are examples of machine-written poetry, and they are pretty well what most humans would agree something that sounds machine-written. Although that was man-written, guessing what machine-written poetry would be like.

[jayjacobus]

Because we're already used to adapting to changing situations. Some people won't but most will. And AIs won't be anything like a threat. It's only a question of adapting to a change in our way of life. We survived the fall of autocratic regimes and we adjusted to democracy. We adapted to the industrial revolution. We adapted to capitalism. We adapted to going to school. To salaried work. To television. To the Internet. You'll always find people who loose out because of their personal make-up but nothing threatening humanity.
EB

If one of the adaptations is an increase in unionization, how will AI handle that? Is it in AI's "personal make-up" to adapt to that? Or is that a sign of its resistance to change?

[-1-]

If one of the adaptations is an increase in unionization, how will AI handle that? Is it in AI's "personal make-up" to adapt to that? Or is that a sign of its resistance to change?

How will AI relate to the freedom to pursue happiness?

How will AI relate to the American Dream? To Mom and to Apple Pie?

Will AI approve of nuclear family, liberty, protection of the minority from the majority, different-sex marriage only to protect the Christian ideal of the nuclear family, ability to choose cheese or no cheese on Big Macs, inalienable right of every American to become grossly obese, and the right to bear arms?

But most importantly, how will AI handle Marxist and Leninist Bolshit = Bolshevik Communist propaganda, now that the McCarthy era is way over, furthermore, way overdue to return?

THESE are the real questions to ponder, not whether AI can produce the perfect chess game or whether or not it can increase wheet production X-fold using the same acreage of land.

[-1-]

Is artificial intelligence, intelligent or a substitute for intelligent?

It will be pure intelligence.

Hume opined humans are driven by passions, and intelligence is a tool they use to satisfy their passions.

AI has no motivation (yet) to pursue a passion, but it will be used as a complementary intelligence to help man pursue his passions, where the pursuing requires some intelligence.

The idea is, the more intelligence, the higher the high of fulfilling the passion.

[-1-]

Is artificial intelligence, intelligent or a substitute for intelligent?

The idea is, the more intelligence, the higher the high of fulfilling the passion.

The only other basis for application is to enhance the military.

[jayjacobus]

Is intelligence judgment, reason, reasoning, understanding, comprehension, acumen, wit, sense and insight or is intelligence the results that mimic these factors in a machine-like, unthinking, unconscious, inattentive way?

[commonsense]

Is intelligence judgment, reason, reasoning, understanding, comprehension, acumen, wit, sense and insight or is intelligence the results that mimic these factors in a machine-like, unthinking, unconscious, inattentive way?

This is a crucial question. How one defines intelligence defines how one responds to the OP’s original question.

As for me, I am at a loss other than to say that the only evidence we have of the former is the latter. Without evidence, none can say that something exists.

One’s view of the above will inform his answer to jayjacobus’ critical question.

[Speakpigeon]

Because we're already used to adapting to changing situations. Some people won't but most will. And AIs won't be anything like a threat. It's only a question of adapting to a change in our way of life. We survived the fall of autocratic regimes and we adjusted to democracy. We adapted to the industrial revolution. We adapted to capitalism. We adapted to going to school. To salaried work. To television. To the Internet. You'll always find people who loose out because of their personal make-up but nothing threatening humanity.

If one of the adaptations is an increase in unionization, how will AI handle that? Is it in AI's "personal make-up" to adapt to that? Or is that a sign of its resistance to change?

I don't see any good reason to use AIs with an IQ lower than that of humans for jobs with executive responsibilities. So, assuming the thing is really smarter than us, it will have more intelligent policies, including social policies, than your average human executive, and this would be an improvement. The only reason that it wouldn't be would be if the user of the AI, i.e. the boss, gives the AI management rules preventing the AI doing whatever the boss wouldn't like. In which case, it's not the AI that would be responsible but its user.
I guess your point is the democratic control of these things. For example, if an AI one day was allowed to run for president, it could easily outsmart human candidates and then run the country on behalf of a small group of people after having been given rules to that effect by these people.
This is just one example but it shows that each particular potential use of a smart AI would require specific measures, including regulation and control, to protect humans.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Is intelligence judgment, reason, reasoning, understanding, comprehension, acumen, wit, sense and insight or is intelligence the results that mimic these factors in a machine-like, unthinking, unconscious, inattentive way?

An AI could only be more intelligent than us if it has better judgement, reason, reasoning, understanding, comprehension, acumen, wit, sense, insight and more.
Your point shows that any AI introduced to replace a human should be comprehensively tested to make sure it has better judgement etc. I'm sure there will be mishaps because the necessary regulations and control agencies will be slow to come on line.
EB

[jayjacobus]

But is artficial intelligence truly what it is said to be, intelligent, or should it be called something else, so it is not misunderstood by laymen?

[Speakpigeon]

But is artficial intelligence truly what it is said to be, intelligent, or should it be called something else, so it is not misuunderstood by laymen?

Sure, but isn't that the situation for most of what you can buy? The smarter-than-human AI story is essentially a scam to fleece rich naive investors or a tall story to obtain research funding from the administration. You can always try to complain.
EB

[jayjacobus]

If I am being intentionally deceived, I should be aware of that possibility but how many people in the USA are unaware?

[Speakpigeon]

If I am being intentionally deceived, I should be aware of that possibility but how many people in the USA are unaware?

Aren't people grown-ups? Try and tell them and see what happens.
I'm sure there are far more people giving credence to the story of smart AIs by warning about the supposed danger than there are people deflating the hype.
EB

[jayjacobus]

If the substitute is being designed to replace (be a sustitute for) people like me, that is not an imagainary threat. But my posts don't address that. They simply attempt to improve how people talk about computers.

[Speakpigeon]

If the substitute is being designed to replace (be a sustitute for) people like me, that is not an imagainary threat. But my posts don't address that. They simply attempt to improve how people talk about computers.

Again, there's nothing new here. Machines have been introduced on a massive scale to replace not the workers themselves but manual labour for more than 150 years now. Meanwhile, the population has increased from around one billion to more than 7 billions. During this time, it seems human rights and democratic rights have improved, standards of living and health have improved, there are more educated people than ever before, more people have more opportunities on all levels, etc. And people are also apparently more intelligent.
The population is now trending towards stabilisation and will very likely decrease within thirty to fifty years whatever the policies put in place. The population is ageing fast, not just in the West, but in Japan, Korea and China. There is already a shortage of manual labour in the West not least due to the last few years' increase in the resentment of the indigenous population against immigrant workers.
So, who is going to care for the elderly when most people will be themselves elderly?
EB