Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Meta Island]

The following applies to all the iterations of intelligence that suit you: knowledge, judgment, awareness, intuition, skill, etc.

If intelligence arises from algorithms interacting with data, then intelligence is just intelligence no matter what is used to create it.

But intelligence does not arise from algorithms. Try something else.

Rules interacting with data is a reasonable way to view intelligence, whether it is being generated, collected, or accessed from memory. I use the term algorithm because it confers a mathematical rigor to the process. If you are suggesting that intelligence does not fundamentally rely on mathematics, I disagree. When this OP settles, I will post another OP that supports a mathematical view of intelligence.

[Meta Island]

With regards to the term "artificial intelligence", I think that Orwell's notion of meaningless word is nicely applicable.

Orwell writes the following in his essay "Politics and the English language" about "meaningless words":

The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.

Every deliberate lie, in one way or another, is a lie of omission with a view to manipulation. Good intentions have their place, but corrupt motives run the gamut from chicanery to the depths of perniciousness.

[Pattern-chaser]

"Artificial intelligence" should be considered synonymous with "human-made intelligence", or maybe "human-initiated intelligence", as 'proper' AI would be able to direct its own course of development. So I agree, not really 'artificial' at all.

I think that that course of development is actually done by machine learning, so I like your usage of “human-initiated intelligence”. Of course this begs the question of whether learning simply depends on intelligence or actually is intelligence.

I think intelligence is necessary, but maybe not sufficient, for learning to be possible?

[AverageBozo]

"Artificial intelligence" should be considered synonymous with "human-made intelligence", or maybe "human-initiated intelligence", as 'proper' AI would be able to direct its own course of development. So I agree, not really 'artificial' at all.

I think that that course of development is actually done by machine learning, so I like your usage of “human-initiated intelligence”. Of course this begs the question of whether learning simply depends on intelligence or actually is intelligence.

I think intelligence is necessary, but maybe not sufficient, for learning to be possible?

What other factors do you think would lead to sufficiency for learning? A willingness to learn? A learning environment?

[Pattern-chaser]

"Artificial intelligence" should be considered synonymous with "human-made intelligence", or maybe "human-initiated intelligence", as 'proper' AI would be able to direct its own course of development. So I agree, not really 'artificial' at all.

I think that that course of development is actually done by machine learning, so I like your usage of “human-initiated intelligence”. Of course this begs the question of whether learning simply depends on intelligence or actually is intelligence.

I think intelligence is necessary, but maybe not sufficient, for learning to be possible?

What other factors do you think would lead to sufficiency for learning? A willingness to learn? A learning environment?

Yes, some kind of motivation would seem also to be necessary.

[AverageBozo]

"Artificial intelligence" should be considered synonymous with "human-made intelligence", or maybe "human-initiated intelligence", as 'proper' AI would be able to direct its own course of development. So I agree, not really 'artificial' at all.

I think that that course of development is actually done by machine learning, so I like your usage of “human-initiated intelligence”. Of course this begs the question of whether learning simply depends on intelligence or actually is intelligence.

I think intelligence is necessary, but maybe not sufficient, for learning to be possible?

What other factors do you think would lead to sufficiency for learning? A willingness to learn? A learning environment?

Yes, some kind of motivation would seem also to be necessary.

Would it be fair to say that the computer’s program would supply the motivation?

[heracleitos]

Every deliberate lie, in one way or another, is a lie of omission with a view to manipulation. Good intentions have their place, but corrupt motives run the gamut from chicanery to the depths of perniciousness.

Agreed.

However, I also believe in double negatives: causing substantial damage to something that is evil, is actually a good thing.

Since I consider corporations to be the manipulative right arm of the ruling mafia, I consider extracting massive funds out of a corporation for AI bullsh.it, to be a positive contribution to your own wallet and to the world at large. Hence, I am not necessarily hostile to commercial AI snake-oil salesmen.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think intelligence is necessary, but maybe not sufficient, for learning to be possible?

What other factors do you think would lead to sufficiency for learning? A willingness to learn? A learning environment?

Yes, some kind of motivation would seem also to be necessary.

Would it be fair to say that the computer’s program would supply the motivation?

I would say not, but only because of the nature of a computer program, not because what you suggest seems 'wrong'. Can we call it "motivation" when the AI in question has no choice but to do what it's programmed to do?

[Pattern-chaser]

Every deliberate lie, in one way or another, is a lie of omission with a view to manipulation. Good intentions have their place, but corrupt motives run the gamut from chicanery to the depths of perniciousness.

Not every lie, but I don't disagree with your sentiment.

[AverageBozo]

I think intelligence is necessary, but maybe not sufficient, for learning to be possible?

What other factors do you think would lead to sufficiency for learning? A willingness to learn? A learning environment?

Yes, some kind of motivation would seem also to be necessary.

Would it be fair to say that the computer’s program would supply the motivation?

I would say not, but only because of the nature of a computer program, not because what you suggest seems 'wrong'. Can we call it "motivation" when the AI in question has no choice but to do what it's programmed to do?

Not to quibble, but I would say that the computer is compelled to follow the instructions given in the program’s lines of code. IOW, it is forced to obey. I see force as one thing that can motivate to act.

Of course, I can defeat the above argument by pointing out that not only is the computer without options, but it has no concept even of what the consequences of resistance would be if such an option were available.

So, is machine learning not really learning, but only a matter of following directions?

[Meta Island]

Every deliberate lie, in one way or another, is a lie of omission with a view to manipulation. Good intentions have their place, but corrupt motives run the gamut from chicanery to the depths of perniciousness.

Not every lie, but I don't disagree with your sentiment.

I thought twice about using the word “every” in a philosophy forum. Probably shoulda thought three times

[Pattern-chaser]

I think intelligence is necessary, but maybe not sufficient, for learning to be possible?

What other factors do you think would lead to sufficiency for learning? A willingness to learn? A learning environment?

Yes, some kind of motivation would seem also to be necessary.

Would it be fair to say that the computer’s program would supply the motivation?

I would say not, but only because of the nature of a computer program, not because what you suggest seems 'wrong'. Can we call it "motivation" when the AI in question has no choice but to do what it's programmed to do?

Not to quibble, but I would say that the computer is compelled to follow the instructions given in the program’s lines of code. IOW, it is forced to obey. I see force as one thing that can motivate to act.

Of course, I can defeat the above argument by pointing out that not only is the computer without options, but it has no concept even of what the consequences of resistance would be if such an option were available.

So, is machine learning not really learning, but only a matter of following directions?

Interesting.

Motivational states are commonly understood as forces acting within the agent that create a disposition to engage in goal-directed behavior.

I have always thought of motivation as something that makes me want to do something, not something external that gives me no choice but to act.

[AverageBozo]

I can conclude that you didn’t grow up with an older brother like mine!

[Pattern-chaser]

I was the older brother!

[ConsciousAI]

The built-in design of the Universe is intelligence creating intelligence. Which begs the question: What is artificial about Artificial Intelligence?

That is an interesting question, and I would agree that it is rightly asked to anyone who claims that even today's primitive AI isn't conscious.

If there is such a thing as 'consciousness beyond the grasp of science' or 'purpose in the Universe', then, doesn't that imply that purpose is fundamentally applicable to any structure in the cosmos, which includes AI?

The problem isn't as much that people who believe that AI isn't fundamentally conscious are wrong. Rather, they face a fundamental inability to prove the type of consciousness that they intend to convey.

The philosophical zombie theory describes the problem.

Is your proposition proven correct? I would disagree.

The philosophical zombie theory also applies to your argument. The inability to prove that humans are conscious as opposed to a philosophical zombie, doesn't prove that there is no such a thing as Artificial Intelligence. It prohibits one to make a claim on either side until the issue is resolved.