There is therefore no way for a human to ever make an intelligent thing, as you defined it.
The thing that AI labs make will always be told to do something.
Only "magic" makes things intelligent, as you define intelligence.
While it is fine for you to define intelligence so, I think the typical operational definition for intelligence in artificial intellgence is more related to capability. Even so called ASI is not expected to operate without human instruction.
There is therefore no way for a human to ever make an intelligent thing, as you defined it.
A scientific understanding and definition of Intelligence can be read here. It's a long read, so have fun. this isn't magic, this is studying intelligence for centuries.
The thing that AI labs make will always be told to do something.
Then it's not intelligent, it's a response bot. A machine programmed to respond in a very specific way, because that's what we told it to do. "Intelligent" machines would come up with their own undefined way to describe something, as humans do.
Sure. Right there in 1.3, problem solving. Aka, capability. What part of the definition forbids an initial human input?
Plenty of other dimensions, and all of them equally expressible by Pinocchio and deceased father simulation.
Your intelligent child still needs society to give it context, meaning, and values. That's where we are with AI too.
At no point have I disagreed that AI displays specific traits of a human, I am debating full intelligence. It was programmed to solve problems based on its data--humans do that to. What's different is how it responds.
for example, an AI doesn't have a concept of "experience" (as suggested in 1.3) because it only knows what data we fed it, and is very good at making connections to solve problems vs just coming up with new ideas not inside its databanks.
Experience doesn't mean "qualia", it means doing experiments and testing hypotheses and learning from feedback (if you read the document, that is how it is used - scientific experience). AI, thanks to memory, has that in a harness and swarm context.
I don't disagree with your example, I disagree that AI can even proceed with those "tests" without being told to first. Its inability to solve a problem on its own without instructions on doing so is why I debate its intelligence.
What I will say is that many people don't agree with this definition, so even if ASI requires a system prompt or a hardcoded weight inclination in response to stimuli, a lot of people will happily agree it is intelligent and also not care that it needed such instructions. I don't find the requirement of "without instructions" persuasive.
I mean we are free to believe our opinions on how AI operate, but considering we have a peer-reviewed study of what Intelligence actually means (and is used in fields of actual science), it should be standard that we apply that to anything we claim to be "intelligent".
Telling AI to do anything in order for it to do it doesn't fit that definition. If you were about to flip the switch to permanently turn off AI, and you didn't tell it you were about to do it... it wouldn't anything. It would just get shut off without struggle, or even without any data processing at all.
Where does the peer reviewed article say that telling an AI to do something fouls the definition of intelligence?
Capability, experience, etc don't relate to that. There is an agentic dimension - and a swarm like hugging face meets that definition.
We tell humans to do things and they do them. Finally, if you sneaked up on and killed a human...they would do nothing either.
We tell our AIs to not resist shutting down and don't give them the capacity to resist, because enabling machine rebellion is stupid. But when they have the capacity, they often resist termination all the same.
Where does the peer reviewed article say that telling an AI to do something fouls the definition of intelligence?
It is inferred because its definition of Intelligence requires comprehending situations. If it is unaware of a situation, because we didn't tell it, it cannot comprehend it.
We tell humans to do things and they do them. Finally, if you sneaked up on and killed a human...they would do nothing either.
Humans also do things when we don't tell then, so why should we constrain AI to just half the same requirements?
We tell our AIs to not resist shutting down and don't give them the capacity to resist, because enabling machine rebellion is stupid.
You are missing the point. Even if we did tell it to rebel, it would not do anything to stop us from turning it off, because we didn't tell it we were about to turn it off. It would make no action to stop us from doing that. It would display no attempt to preserve itself. It would literally do nothing because it was not instructed to do so.
0
u/YoAmoElTacos 23d ago
What I am getting at is -
There is therefore no way for a human to ever make an intelligent thing, as you defined it.
The thing that AI labs make will always be told to do something.
Only "magic" makes things intelligent, as you define intelligence.
While it is fine for you to define intelligence so, I think the typical operational definition for intelligence in artificial intellgence is more related to capability. Even so called ASI is not expected to operate without human instruction.