Does it even matter "what intelligence is"? Much like "life" [0], the difficulty seems to be coming from being unable to define it, rather than "finding" it. There are multiple ways it can be defined, based on a bunch of different properties, and each definition delivers different outlooks.
Similar to "life", we use "intelligence" in everyday speech without specifying which definition we mean. I don't think that's going to change – it's just as unproductive to limit "life" to a single definiton (what about viruses? unconsciousness? ecosystems?) as it would be with "intelligence" (pets? ants? being able to converse with a human? showing reasoning? creativity?).
But that also means that the popular term "AI" will never be precise.
Usually, people define Intelligence to be "that thing humans have". We can recognise it in ourselves and other humans, realise it doesn't exist in animals, but there is no really good definition of what that means.
But that doesn't mean anything. Creating something artificial that has whatever it is that we have is the goal.
The sole definition of intelligence is under heavy load of reconsideration the last decades with the emergence of a better knowledge of animal cognition, for example.
> Calling it "intelligence" is just tiring at this point...
I think more what they are getting at here is emergence[0] rather than "intelligence" like AI/AGI/ML or animal intelligence. Ants are fairly dumb and have mostly simple rule sets but create a form of intelligence through emergent properties. Similarly Conway's Game of Life or even physics itself. I think the problem is that intelligence is often used as a buzzword in marketing and can send mixed signals and makes it difficult to determine what authors mean.
This is a serious issue. The notion of "intelligence" is so abstract and intangible, that giving it a concrete definition is nearly redefining it. Likely what we're calling intelligence, is an oversimplification of reality; somewhat akin to the species problem in biology.
The particular problem here is both groups are right.
Intelligence is a spectrum of behaviors everywhere from the actions of the lowliest single celled organism up to and exceeding human capabilities. The definition with this wide of range is unfortunately practically useless when it comes to narrowing down a multitude of specific behaviors, specifically around the median of human intelligence. It gets more tricky as nothing in the past really got close to human ability so we were never forced to really define what human intelligence is formally.
We're going to find the same issues here as we do defining the term life.
AI has some good definitions as far as intelligence is concerned. Perhaps you are worried about consciousness or something, but this is not needed for a definition of what intelligence means.
I have a definition of intelligence. [...]
Intelligence is prediction.
In the case of intelligent living processes ranging from single celled organisms to complex multicellular life, intelligence arises from the need to predict the future to survive and reproduce. More intelligent organisms build more elaborate models of the world using better developed senses in order to do so.
Humans model the world primarily with language, which allows us to share our models with each other, across both space and time! Without language, it is extraordinarily more difficult to communicate complex abstract thoughts. As a side effect of our high level of intelligence, our wetware is capable of modeling things outside of language, such as mathematics. [...]
In general, I think we need to stop equating intelligence with consciousness, agency, moral value, and living things. These are entirely different concepts, and, as a species, we are blinded by our egotistical identity of being smarter than the other animals.
According to my definition, intelligence is actually all around us. We are blind to it because we focus only on how intelligence manifests in humans (defined by by our specific social organization and biological senses), and then use that as a benchmark to judge every other thing in the world.
A less socially-charged definition of intelligence would make it easier to compare intelligence across living and non-living processes, though it would not be "popular science" useful for ranking humans.
I dunno, the definition of intelligence is biased by our own ability to comprehend and therefore profoundly slim (even IQ can be gamed, and most people puke at emotional/lizard brain intelligence) so large chances "science" either under or overshoots its "stakeholder aware" analysis and doesn't know functional self preserving, iterative enhancement intellect when its looking it in the face. You know us monkeys, running around derping science with wacky wavy hands going 'Hai Dolphin What You do jump hoop!'. AI, rockin the casbah. Maybe one day!
We don't call it "intelligent" or "intelligence", we call it "artificial intelligence". Adjectives matter.
Furthermore, what is intelligence? Define it. Is an ant intelligent? Is a microbe which exhibits simple yet effective behavior intelligent? Is a machine that can play chess far better than any other known lifeform intelligent?
We can define intelligence in a very real, practical way now. We see and identify intelligence all the time in humans and in animals and in AI. We may not be perfect at identifying it (just like grog might mistake a rising sun for a forest fire), but we don't need a perfect mathematical or philosophical definition that we all agree on to create it. We just need to rub sticks together really hard.
Interesting article. I personally don't think we'll ever have a definition of intelligence because it is an emergent behaviour. We'll just keep working on it, all the while believing that what we create is not intelligent, until one day it is and kills us all.
I don't know if intelligence can really be defined, scientifically, objectively or otherwise.
Intelligence is a part of evolution, so it is really hard to describe it. There are many behaviors which are deterministic, automatic because they are described by genes. I tend to think that brains are not really smart, but we just want to give value to what makes us better, so we call it intelligence.
Intelligence doesn't really exist, there is just transmission of knowledge.
The use of the word "intelligence" overall is problematic. To most people, "intelligence" is human inductive reasoning. We see "intelligent" creatures in mass media and books--creatures that act just like humans except aren't biological. We think of Commander Data from Star Trek. Proponents of AI know most people interpret the term that way and gladly use the term as a way of implying the same magic we see in media.
I think it's something interesting to consider. I'd describe it more as computation than as intelligence, but I also do keep in mind that there is no single universally-agreed-upon definition of intelligence, so the goalposts can shift.
Similar to "life", we use "intelligence" in everyday speech without specifying which definition we mean. I don't think that's going to change – it's just as unproductive to limit "life" to a single definiton (what about viruses? unconsciousness? ecosystems?) as it would be with "intelligence" (pets? ants? being able to converse with a human? showing reasoning? creativity?).
But that also means that the popular term "AI" will never be precise.
[0] https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-life-its-vast-diversi...
reply