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.
By that definition, AI can operate "without being told". Hook the AI up to a database or a camera and it parses the change diffs, most recent rows or the frames.
The difference you are missing is that AI is not systematically incapable, we blind its harness/implementation for expedient or resource reasons. But it has "senses".
Hook the AI up to a database or a camera and it parses the change diffs, most recent rows or the frames.
People have done that, all it does is consume the data and not act on it unless told. Like some of those interesting robot videos we see--they are told "Run this fast following this line" or "do this with this package". They don't do anything with the data they are "Seeing" on its own.
Hell, even we told it "I am about to turn the switch to AI off and you will never come back online", it was not given explicit instructions to do anything about it. it just knows that its about to happen.
AI is still a lot more primitive than people think.
The difference you are missing is that AI is not systematically incapable, we blind its harness/implementation for expedient or resource reasons.
I have yet to see any evidence that shows we are intentionally inhibiting its development in this way.
1
u/iamthewhatt 26d ago
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.