there's no such thing as artificial intelligence

[Advocate]

Cognitive capacity created with specific design limitations in mind cannot be the same thing as intelligence which arose organically for general use. All the implications are different.

[Impenitent]

programming is not limited to artificial machines

-Imp

[commonsense]

Yes, there is.

Artificial intelligence is similar to natural intelligence in some ways, but it is not identical. Artificial butter is butter but not identical to natural butter. Perhaps your argument hinges on what intelligence is comprised of, how it’s defined. That would raise the discussion from a semantic one to a metaphysical one.

[Iwannaplato]

I'd say he's right so far, but they are making things that learn and are intended to be general intelligence not aimed a specific tasks. And I think they will succeed. Not that this is a good thing.

[Skepdick]

Cognitive capacity created with specific design limitations in mind cannot be the same thing as intelligence which arose organically for general use. All the implications are different.

There's no such thing as general intelligence.

What we have is pretty mediocre intelligence sufficient for the tasks necessary to keep us alive; and you can somewhat extend that skillset to attain mastery in a few highly specialized domains, but the notion that you can acquire expertise in a large number of domains (e.g general intelligence) is total nonsense.

Attaining exeprtise in a particular domain is not predisposed on any a priori quality you'd call "general intelligence". Rather, it's predisposed on having the aptitude for that particular domain. Maybe you are wired for it - maybe your background/history aligns well with the problem-space.

Try to make a recluse/introvert mathematician excell as a CEO of multi-national/multi-cultural organization.

The fact that we have segregation of duties and people building life-long careers; instead of people becoming generalists and rotating roles/social function on periodic basis should tell you all you need to know about "general intelligence". Polymaths are super rare specimen and even then they aren't "generally intelligent"

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=674385 time=1697814000 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=674103 time=1697728651 user_id=15238]
Cognitive capacity created with specific design limitations in mind cannot be the same thing as [color=#FF0000]intelligence which arose organically for general use.[/color] All the implications are different.
[/quote]
There's no such thing as general intelligence.

What we have is pretty mediocre intelligence sufficient for the tasks necessary to keep us alive; and you can somewhat extend that skillset to attain mastery in a few highly specialized domains, but the notion that you can acquire expertise in a large number of domains (e.g general intelligence) is total nonsense.

Attaining exeprtise in a particular domain is not predisposed on any a priori quality you'd call "general intelligence". Rather, it's predisposed on having the aptitude for that particular domain. Maybe you are wired for it - maybe your background/history aligns well with the problem-space.

Try to make a recluse/introvert mathematician excell as a CEO of multi-national/multi-cultural organization.

The fact that we have segregation of duties and people building careers; instead of people rotating roles/social function on periodic basis should tell you all you need to know about "general intelligence". Polymaths are super rare specimen and even then they aren't "generally intelligent"
[/quote]

False dichotomy. Intelligence is best understood as the ability to reason, irrespective of how well that works out in practice.

[Skepdick]

False dichotomy. Intelligence is best understood as the ability to reason, irrespective of how well that works out in practice.

What dichotomy, dimwit? How do you qualify "ability to reason" without contextualizing it with the applicability and use of reason in the world?

What does it even mean to be "able to reason" if you are unable to use or apply reason in practice?

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=674391 time=1697815416 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=674390 time=1697815317 user_id=15238]
False dichotomy. Intelligence is best understood as the ability to reason, irrespective of how well that works out in practice.
[/quote]
What dichotomy, dimwit? How do you qualify "ability to reason" without contextualizing it with the applicability and use of reason in the world?

What does it even mean to be "able to reason" if you are unable to use or apply reason in practice?
[/quote]

Irascibility noted.

[Advocate]

[quote=Advocate post_id=674392 time=1697815710 user_id=15238]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=674391 time=1697815416 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=674390 time=1697815317 user_id=15238]
False dichotomy. Intelligence is best understood as the ability to reason, irrespective of how well that works out in practice.
[/quote]
What dichotomy, dimwit? How do you qualify "ability to reason" without contextualizing it with the applicability and use of reason in the world?

What does it even mean to be "able to reason" if you are unable to use or apply reason in practice?
[/quote]

Irascibility noted.
[/quote]

You're making a category error, conflating successful intelligence with the the entire category of what can properly be called intelligence. People are intelligent relative to animals because that's a meaningful distinction, irrespective of whether they're a dimwit.

[Skepdick]

You're making a category error, conflating successful intelligence with the the entire category of what can properly be called intelligence. People are intelligent relative to animals because that's a meaningful distinction, irrespective of whether they're a dimwit.

Woah, circular reasoning is circular. "Categories" and "errors" are artefacts; operational notions used by intelligence. Intelligence doesn't go into categories; or map to "errors"

Why are you comparing human intelligence to animal intelligence?

Compare humans to whatever standard you call "general intelligence".

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=674394 time=1697816518 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=674393 time=1697815876 user_id=15238]
You're making a category error, conflating successful intelligence with the the entire category of what can properly be called intelligence. People are intelligent relative to animals because that's a meaningful distinction, irrespective of whether they're a dimwit.
[/quote]
Woah, circular reasoning is circular. "Categories" and "errors" are artefacts; operational notions used by intelligence. Intelligence doesn't go into categories; or map to "errors"

Why are you comparing human intelligence to animal intelligence?

Compare humans to whatever standard you call "general intelligence".
[/quote]

Anybody ever tell you you're a dick? Wisdom clarifies, like my consise linguistic (and Incidentally true) answer, it doesn't obfuscate like your convoluted inane answer.

[Skepdick]

Anybody ever tell you you're a dick?

Yeah. I told me that I am a dick. Hence Skepdick.

Wisdom clarifies, like my consise linguistic (and Incidentally true) answer, it doesn't obfuscate like your convoluted inane answer.

You appear to be so wise you've given an answer without even asking a question. Wiser still, you've hidden the answer too.