Comment by jeremyjh 4 days ago
Until the thing can learn on its own and advance its capabilities to the same degree that a junior developer can, it is not intelligent enough to do that work. It doesn't learn our APIs, it doesn't learn our business domain, it doesn't learn from the countless mistakes I correct it on. What we have now is interesting, it is helping sometimes and wasteful others. It is not intelligent.
Update: it might have been clearer and more helpful if I wrote this instead…
This idea of intelligence stated above seems to combine computation, memory, and self-improvement. These three concepts (as I understand them) are both different and logically decoupled.
For example, in the context of general agents, computational ability can change without affecting memory capability. Also, high computational ability does not necessarily confer self-improvement abilities. Having more memory does not necessarily benefit self-improvement.
In the case of biology, it is possible that self improvement demands energy savings and therefore sensory processing degradation. This conceptually relates to a low power CPU mode or a gasoline engine that can turn off some cylinders.
No confusion here.
This is just semantics, but you brought it up. The very first definition of intelligence provided by Webster:
1.a. the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason also : the skilled use of reason
A time traveler from the future has recommended we both read or reread “Disputing Definitions” by Yudkowsky (2008).
Some favorite quotes of mine from it:
> Dictionary editors are historians of usage, not legislators of language. Dictionary editors find words in current usage, then write down the words next to (a small part of) what people seem to mean by them.
> Arguing about definitions is a garden path; people wouldn't go down the path if they saw at the outset where it led.
>> Eliezer: "Personally I'd say that if the issue arises, both sides should switch to describing the event in unambiguous lower-level constituents, like acoustic vibrations or auditory experiences. Or each side could designate a new word, like 'alberzle' and 'bargulum', to use for what they respectively used to call 'sound'; and then both sides could use the new words consistently. That way neither side has to back down or lose face, but they can still communicate. And of course you should try to keep track, at all times, of some testable proposition that the argument is actually about. Does that sound right to you?"
Ok, let’s work with that definition for this subthread. Even so, one can satisfy that definition without having the ability to:
> “advance its capabilities”
(your phrase)
An example would be a person with damaged short-term memory. And (pretty sure) an AI system without history and that cannot modify itself.
Another thing that jumps out to me is just how fluidly people redefine "intelligence" to mean "just beyond what machines today can do". I can't help wonder much your definition has changed. What would happen if we reviewed your previous opinions, commentary, thoughts, etc... would your time-varying definitions of "intelligence" be durable and consistent? Would this sequence show movement towards a clearer and more testable definition over time?
My guess? The tail is wagging the dog here -- you are redefining the term in service of other goals. Many people naturally want humanity to remain at the top of the intellectual ladder and will distort reality as needed to stay there.
My point is not to drag anyone through the mud for doing the above. We all do it to various degrees.
Now, for my sermon. More people need to wake up and realize machine intelligence has no physics-based constraints to surpassing us.
A. Businesses will boom and bust. Hype will come and go. Humanity has an intrinsic drive to advance thinking tools. So AI is backed by huge incentives to continue to grow, no matter how many missteps economic or otherwise.
B. The mammalian brain is an existence proof that intelligence can be grown / evolved. Homo sapiens could have bigger brains if not for birth-canal size constraints and energy limitations.
C. There are good reasons to suggest that designing an intelligent machine will be more promising than evolving one.
D. There are good reasons to suggest silicon-based intelligence will go much further than carbon-based brains.
E. We need to stop deluding ourselves by moving the goalposts. We need to acknowledge reality, for this is reality we are living in, and this is reality we can manipulate.
Let me know if you disagree with any of the sentences below. I'm not here to preach to the void.
> A. Businesses will boom and bust. Hype will come and go. Humanity has an intrinsic drive to advance thinking tools. So AI is backed by huge incentives to continue to grow, no matter how many missteps economic or otherwise.
Corrected to:
A. Businesses will boom and bust. Hype will come and go. Nevertheless, humanity seems to have an intrinsic drive to innovate, which means pushing the limits of technology. People will seek more intelligent machines, because we perceive them as useful tools. So AI is pressurized by long-running, powerful incentives, no matter how many missteps economic or otherwise. It would take a massive and sustained counter-force to prevent a generally upwards AI progression.
Did Webster also redefine the term in service of other goals?
1. the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations
This also reveals a failure mode in conversations that might go as follows. You point to some version of Webster’s dictionary, but I point to Stuart Russell (an expert in AI). If this is all we do, it is nothing more than an appeal to authority and we don’t get far.
> It is not intelligent.
Which of the following would you agree to... ?
1. There is no single bar for intelligence.
2. Intelligence is better measured on a scale than with 1 bit (yes/no).
3. Intelligence is better considered as having many components instead of just one. When people talk about intelligence, they often mean different things across domains, such as emotional, social, conceptual, spatial, kinetic, sensory, etc.
4. Many researchers have looked for -- and found -- in humans, at least, some notions of generalized intellectual capability that tends to help across a wide variety of cognitive tasks.
If some of these make sense, I suggest it would be wise to conclude:
5. Reasonable people accentuate different aspects and even definitions of intelligence.
6. Expecting a yes/no answer for "is X intelligent?" without considerable explanation is approximately useless. (Unless it is a genuinely curious opener for an in-depth conversation.)
7. Asking "is X intelligent?" tends to be a poorly framed question.