With a background in both math/computer science and psychology, I disagree with your definition of 'intelligence' and consider the name "AI" the ugly aspect of AI.
Learning is NOT part of intelligence - and that's the heart of the matter. The word 'intelligent' comes from Latin 'inter' (= between) and 'legere' (= to read) and denotes the ability to 'read between.' Machines are not - and will never be - intelligent. They just make available the intelligence of those who built the system
Interesting take. Technically its not my definition, it’s from a lexicon. Regardless, I believe both can be true since they don’t cancel each other out.
If you include learning, every cell is intelligent - so what's then the value in using the term intelligent? Just say "programmable" or "capable of learning".
The value of language as a cultural asset is that we use words to convey a precise content.
Mathematics is the basis of EVERY science ... and in mathematics definitions and precision are KEY. I am a mathematician, now exploring fields such as psychology, and it really hurts sometimes ... ;)
With a background in both math/computer science and psychology, I disagree with your definition of 'intelligence' and consider the name "AI" the ugly aspect of AI.
Learning is NOT part of intelligence - and that's the heart of the matter. The word 'intelligent' comes from Latin 'inter' (= between) and 'legere' (= to read) and denotes the ability to 'read between.' Machines are not - and will never be - intelligent. They just make available the intelligence of those who built the system
Here are my two takes on AI:
https://open.substack.com/pub/bernhardexplores/p/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of?r=3oqs68&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://open.substack.com/pub/bernhardexplores/p/why-ai-systems-are-not-intelligent?r=3oqs68&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
And here is my take on Intelligence:
https://open.substack.com/pub/bernhardexplores/p/why-and-how-we-lose-our-innate-intelligence?r=3oqs68&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Interesting take. Technically its not my definition, it’s from a lexicon. Regardless, I believe both can be true since they don’t cancel each other out.
The trouble with the definition of intelligence that you use is that it includes learning - which is nonsense. Learning is programmability and has nothing to do with intelligence. EVERY life form is programmable. I explain this in my article "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of AI": https://open.substack.com/pub/bernhardexplores/p/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of?r=3oqs68&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
If you include learning, every cell is intelligent - so what's then the value in using the term intelligent? Just say "programmable" or "capable of learning".
The value of language as a cultural asset is that we use words to convey a precise content.
Mathematics is the basis of EVERY science ... and in mathematics definitions and precision are KEY. I am a mathematician, now exploring fields such as psychology, and it really hurts sometimes ... ;)
Definitions are neither true nor false, because definitions are free. Anyone can define what they want. Definitions just make more or less (or no) sense. For example, many dictionaries define emotions as feelings (and vice versa), which is nonsense. I explain the difference in my article "Feelings are Not the Same as Emotions" (https://open.substack.com/pub/bernhardexplores/p/feelings-are-not-the-same-as-emotions?r=3oqs68&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web).
Likewise, consciousness is often defined as awareness (and vice versa). Another stupidity, see my article "Consciousness is Not the Same as Awareness" (https://open.substack.com/pub/bernhardexplores/p/consciousness-is-not-the-same-as?r=3oqs68&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web). By equating these two terms, we are not able to distinguish these two completely different phenomena.
As long as we use such nonsense definitions, we create nonsense conversations ... or, as Socrates put it:
"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms." (Socrates)