Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[amorphos_ii]

the beast

Interesting speculation. IMO, the cognitive experience correlates with language. In the case of a possible AI, the experience can be broken down into energy inputs correlating with language that could resemble human language. However, the path of thinking about thinking is not (IMO) a clear path. It has to do with the self-regulating executive functions as it becomes “aware” of the Meta components in the evolution of the decision making.

Speculation yes, but I am looking at what ARE factors present in the evaluation. We clearly see with e.g. Spanish castle optical illusion, that when the castle turns into a colour picture and not b/w, then ‘something’ has coloured the image in. to answer as to what intelligence is, we also have to ask what are existent things? Are e.g. colour qualia something real which is present. Are they also present in nature – is a red sky red. Ergo do energy forms somehow contain or emit qualities which are in us experiential.
We cannot answer that because e.g. colour qualia are innate, but we can say they are present in the equation, because they are our primary experience of reality [first and foremost, not last or otherwise after the fact].

On the question of language; does an AI or computer even know what that is, do our brains know? What is a word or meaning as it actually sits in the brain, is there say, a ‘w’ literally in our brain somewhere, indeed is there the thing [qualia?] we are thinking of when we think ‘W’!

For example: What is the gratification concept that overcomes the logical method?

Like heart over mind? Our reproductive needs outweigh what would seem like an otherwise more logical choice. Its a whole different qualia, that of sensation and even more fundamentally, of being.
Being is a state of mind but perhaps not of intelligence. However, intelligence without it, is mechanistic [I doubt if it can know what a ‘w’ is].

[Lagayascienza]

Count, intelligence is what we have. How do we measure our own intelligence and the intelligence of animals lower down on the intelligence spectrum? We know the answer to that question. I ask, why can’t we measure intelligence in non-organic neural networks in the same way that we measure it in animals?

I get the feeling we are getting bogged down in details. The bottom line for me is that organic neural networks are physical systems which in animals produce various levels of consciousness and intelligence. Physical systems can be understood. What can be understood about organic neural networks can eventually be emulated in a non-organic substrate. You seem to believe that this may not be the case but it is not clear to me why you believe this.

I assume that you are not a neuroscientist or computer scientist but an interested lay-person like me. You keep asking more questions, or reframing old questions. But you never give an indication of what you think is going on in organic neural networks to produce consciousness and intelligence. As a lay-person, I must leave the details of what happens in organic and non-organic neural networks to neuroscientists and computer scientists. A lot of the questions you pose about organic neural networks and how they do what they do, and how that could be emulated in artificial neural networks, are dealt with in the books I have referred to.

If you could read those books then we might be able to discuss them in detail, chapter by chapter, and arrive at the key issues we differ on, if any. For example, we could discuss the sections on intelligence and what is known about organic neural networks and the sections on artificial neural networks and AI. If you have any science-based books on the subject that you think I might benefit from, I will certainly read them. If we don’t do it that way, then I fear we will just keep circling the key issues but never arrive at an understanding of our differences, if indeed we have any substantial differences.

To me, this is not about winning an argument but about finding out what is known, and what we still need to find out, in order to build AGI.

Are you open to my suggestion?

[The Beast]

the beast

Interesting speculation. IMO, the cognitive experience correlates with language. In the case of a possible AI, the experience can be broken down into energy inputs correlating with language that could resemble human language. However, the path of thinking about thinking is not (IMO) a clear path. It has to do with the self-regulating executive functions as it becomes “aware” of the Meta components in the evolution of the decision making.

Speculation yes, but I am looking at what ARE factors present in the evaluation. We clearly see with e.g. Spanish castle optical illusion, that when the castle turns into a colour picture and not b/w, then ‘something’ has coloured the image in. to answer as to what intelligence is, we also have to ask what are existent things? Are e.g. colour qualia something real which is present. Are they also present in nature – is a red sky red. Ergo do energy forms somehow contain or emit qualities which are in us experiential.
We cannot answer that because e.g. colour qualia are innate, but we can say they are present in the equation, because they are our primary experience of reality [first and foremost, not last or otherwise after the fact].

On the question of language; does an AI or computer even know what that is, do our brains know? What is a word or meaning as it actually sits in the brain, is there say, a ‘w’ literally in our brain somewhere, indeed is there the thing [qualia?] we are thinking of when we think ‘W’!

For example: What is the gratification concept that overcomes the logical method?

Like heart over mind? Our reproductive needs outweigh what would seem like an otherwise more logical choice. Its a whole different qualia, that of sensation and even more fundamentally, of being.
Being is a state of mind but perhaps not of intelligence. However, intelligence without it, is mechanistic [I doubt if it can know what a ‘w’ is].

Your private qualia might communicate (language) with other private qualia for example: From 1 to ten describe your pain (with a visual aid of redness). There is an average human quale. Moreover, the term qualia are also an average description of meaning into categories. AI might perceive redness as a wave of amplitude and frequency correlating with the appropriate language. Can AI “think” of the experience as gratifying? What if gratifying is a loop of redness that can be controlled to an optimal point by an intrinsic method? How would AI describe it? ,,, would that be the same as human gratification with the premise that such an evolving loop exists? From 1 to ten….

[Pattern-chaser]

Intelligence regards the transfer, reception and cognition of information. AI in the current age of technology are advanced 'intelligence-programs', they are not a form of artificial intelligence, they require a mental partner, metaphorically a gestalt. However, they are generally more efficient than scanning through an encyclopedia yourself as you can ask questions. An accurate definition of ChatGPT would be as an advanced index, capable of coming up with correct answers in response to conversation from a partner with a mind.

Yes, current AIs are what I call 'super-Google', and they're very good at what they do. And the future may bring intelligent machines, but they're not here yet.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think AI is intelligent if you are willing to forget how it's being generated.

If you want to take into account how "the intelligence" came about then, in my opinion, it's a paradox of intelligence. It can't be intelligence as it has no cognition and what it says only appears to be an opinion but it's not. You need a person to have an opinion don't you? So how can a robot hold an intelligent opinion? It does not and yet it does. Hence, it's a paradox.

No, it's not a paradox. It's a deliberate (and transparent) deception. (Current) AIs are implemented to look intelligent, not to be so.

In order to be a deception, I think you would agree that it must be able to deceive.

You missed my point. Perhaps I wasn't very clear? It is our human implementation of AI that is transparently deceptive. Deceptive because they emulate the appearance of intelligence without actually being intelligent, and transparent (i.e. widely known and appreciated) because no-one denies this, or claims it isn't so (because it is so).

[Count Lucanor]

Count, intelligence is what we have. How do we measure our own intelligence and the intelligence of animals lower down on the intelligence spectrum? We know the answer to that question.

Apparently, we don’t know, since we have gone through a bunch of definitions and will not settle for any. Just when it seems you have made your mind about what we are pointing to when referring to intelligence, you begin describing it in a different, contradictory way. Sometimes it looks as if intelligence is what only a human neocortex will produce, sometimes is not. Sometimes it looks as if it is what is found in all neural networks, sometimes only some of them. I have pointed out to specific contradictory claims, yet no response to those. Maybe the right answer is found in some of those books you say you’ve been reading, and I’ve been open to read from you how they can contribute to this discussion, but if you can’t find it yourself, I’ll just keep asking. I made it clear at the start of this part of the thread in November that there is clearly an ambiguity in the use of the term intelligence, even in the most technical or scientific circles, which also shows in Hawkins’ book. You need to know what you’re working with in order to advance and produce any knowledge, even if you merely stick to an operational definition for the purpose of controlling your results to remain consistent, coherent. So I offered a bunch of possible definitions of what is it that we are talking about when referring to intelligence, but here we are. Not much progress.

I ask, why can’t we measure intelligence in non-organic neural networks in the same way that we measure it in animals?

How about knowing what you’re measuring, in the first place.

I get the feeling we are getting bogged down in details. The bottom line for me is that organic neural networks are physical systems which in animals produce various levels of consciousness and intelligence. Physical systems can be understood. What can be understood about organic neural networks can eventually be emulated in a non-organic substrate. You seem to believe that this may not be the case but it is not clear to me why you believe this.

It is odd that you acknowledge that we need to understand the physical systems, but when I go down to the details about those physical systems to see how they compare to each other, you dismiss the issue. I have pointed out that there s not an undifferentiated, homogenous, continuous neural network in living beings, but a complex system organized in different anatomical parts with different functions, including hundreds of different types of neurons, and they operate several organic systems within an organism, which also differ between the whole range of organic forms, from insects to humans. I propose that this is very much unlike the computational neural networks, so there’s something there to talk about and try to understand in physical systems. At least it would help us test your hypothesis that the biological neural networks can be replicated artificially, independently of the fact that we have not reached a definition of what intelligence is.

I assume that you are not a neuroscientist or computer scientist but an interested lay-person like me. You keep asking more questions, or reframing old questions. But you never give an indication of what you think is going on in organic neural networks to produce consciousness and intelligence. As a lay-person, I must leave the details of what happens in organic and non-organic neural networks to neuroscientists and computer scientists.

As Hawkins clearly stated, technically speaking, how exactly consciousness and intelligence (assuming we were absolutely clear about what these terms actually refer to) work, is a complete mystery. All the rest about the anatomy, biochemistry, organic functions, etc., and how they relate to observable behaviors, we know quite a lot, but when it comes to understanding the qualitative phenomenon of conscious experience itself, all we are left to talk about is theoretical frameworks. And that’s why we are discussing this in a philosophical forum, focusing primarily on the possibilities of a specific theoretical framework that posited the emergence of consciousness or intelligence by means of computational, algorithmic systems. We moved then to assess other theoretical frameworks that look into the types of systems that actually produce consciousness or intelligence (biological systems). We are here now trying to identify which biological systems do carry consciousness or intelligence. Those “details” seem important. One thing I’m also trying to highlight, as in a previous statement, is the ambiguity and loose application of key concepts across several fields and even among researchers. Intelligence, cognition, sentience, agency, do not mean the same in every instance.

I also gave more than an indication of what I think is going on in general: cognition entails the regulation of the whole body of an organism, so you cannot simply disassociate the mind processes from the other organic processes which ultimately explain the behavior of that organism. The implication is that in order to replicate artificially a system that houses a mind process, whatever it may be, you will need to replicate the whole organic process, which is not simply reducible to neurons connected to each other. Of course, you may decide that you don’t want that, but only to automate tasks and outperform biological systems. That’s fine, but it’s not AI, AGI, nor anything similar.

A lot of the questions you pose about organic neural networks and how they do what they do, and how that could be emulated in artificial neural networks, are dealt with in the books I have referred to.

If you could read those books then we might be able to discuss them in detail, chapter by chapter, and arrive at the key issues we differ on, if any. For example, we could discuss the sections on intelligence and what is known about organic neural networks and the sections on artificial neural networks and AI. If you have any science-based books on the subject that you think I might benefit from, I will certainly read them. If we don’t do it that way, then I fear we will just keep circling the key issues but never arrive at an understanding of our differences, if indeed we have any substantial differences.

To me, this is not about winning an argument but about finding out what is known, and what we still need to find out, in order to build AGI.

Are you open to my suggestion?

I understand you wanted to get better instructed with brain literature and contribute to this discussion with perhaps new insights. I’ve been open to it, but I don’t think I should be conditioned to leave this forum to get acquainted with your references first, before engaging in a productive discussion. As a lay person myself, just as you are, I feel capable of dealing with the subject as it is proposed, right now. All references are welcomed, but also open to scrutiny, since often what is claimed to “be known”, is still open to study.

[Lagayascienza]

I understand you wanted to get better instructed with brain literature and contribute to this discussion with perhaps new insights. I’ve been open to it, but I don’t think I should be conditioned to leave this forum to get acquainted with your references first, before engaging in a productive discussion. As a lay person myself, just as you are, I feel capable of dealing with the subject as it is proposed, right now. All references are welcomed, but also open to scrutiny, since often what is claimed to “be known”, is still open to study.

Ok, but I do not feel so capable. I need a starting point. I’m proposing that we focus on what is currently known and what still needs to be discovered.

The work of neuroscientists and computer scientists such as Hawkins and Bennet would be a good starting point and would provide a framework for discussing what is known. They do a very good job of explaining neural architecture, what is known about how it works and what it accomplishes, and what we still need to find out about natural neural networks in order to emulate them in an artificial substrate.

Yes, this is a philosophy forum but, to be honest, on this topic, I’m not much interested in conceptual hair-splitting and arcane philosophical speculation. What I’m looking for is a scientific theory, backed by empirical evidence, of how neural networks do what they do, and how what they do might be emulated in an artificial substrate.

We might, for example, start by thinking about what a neuron is and the electro-chemical processes that occur in networks of neurons. Then we might look at how those processes produce awareness and intelligence. That’s what Harkins and Bennet do and it is that sort of thing I’d like to discuss if we could.

Sure, we can also go to SEP and look at the philosophy around consciousness and intelligence and what it all might mean but, for me, it would be easier to do that once we are on firm ground in respect of what is known and what is yet to be discovered.

[The Beast]

I see a fundamental question: Is intelligence the property of living organisms or consciousness is the property of lifeforms? If consciousness is the property of a lifeless form (object) I might hypothesize that consciousness is fundamental. I might define consciousness as energy with the corresponding (unobserved) consciousness particle and the method (life or lifeless) organizes consciousness. IMO, giving life (needs some expanded definition) to lifeless objects is the same as giving consciousness A--> B.
I am making a distinction between giving life from organizing fundamental consciousness with a method. So: Is it life or lifeless? Science is the property of consciousness.

[Lagayascienza]

So, if an AI can do science, is it intelligent? And if it is intelligent, is it life?

[The Beast]

So, if an AI can do science, is it intelligent? And if it is intelligent, is it life?

It is my understanding that humans (lifeforms) and point in time do Science and AI is a tool of humans. Is your understanding that Science (in the future) can give life (consciousness) to lifeless objects? If so, do you consider consciousness directing the method?

[Count Lucanor]

I understand you wanted to get better instructed with brain literature and contribute to this discussion with perhaps new insights. I’ve been open to it, but I don’t think I should be conditioned to leave this forum to get acquainted with your references first, before engaging in a productive discussion. As a lay person myself, just as you are, I feel capable of dealing with the subject as it is proposed, right now. All references are welcomed, but also open to scrutiny, since often what is claimed to “be known”, is still open to study.

Ok, but I do not feel so capable. I need a starting point. I’m proposing that we focus on what is currently known and what still needs to be discovered.

The work of neuroscientists and computer scientists such as Hawkins and Bennet would be a good starting point and would provide a framework for discussing what is known. They do a very good job of explaining neural architecture, what is known about how it works and what it accomplishes, and what we still need to find out about natural neural networks in order to emulate them in an artificial substrate.

Yes, this is a philosophy forum but, to be honest, on this topic, I’m not much interested in conceptual hair-splitting and arcane philosophical speculation. What I’m looking for is a scientific theory, backed by empirical evidence, of how neural networks do what they do, and how what they do might be emulated in an artificial substrate.

If you need to go the basics, fine, but there’s already a context that frames this discussion and that should guide us into what we must be looking for. The most basic question, which I have raised several times, without a definite answer, is: what are we referring to when talking about intelligence? It seems rather obvious that anything you do to explain how intelligence can be replicated, has to go first through identifying what intelligence is in the first place, so that when you point at something and say: “there it is, we have created intelligence”, we can look at it and confirm: “yes, that’s right, that follows a criteria for being called intelligence”, or “no, that’s not consistent with what we said intelligence is”. I have stated several times that there’s a lack of consistency and a lot of ambiguity in the related literature, even in specialized literature, about what are those things we are looking for. That’s most likely because there are preconceptions that favor some theoretical frameworks over the others, which means we have to look at those preconceptions first and agree on some principles.

Hawkins, Bennet and a lot of people have written books about the subject, but those are not scientific papers, they are targeted to the general public as books ranging between science divulgation and the argumentative essay, discussing preliminary findings and promoting a particular approach to the problem. As Hawkins himself says, he’s interested on theoretical frameworks, as everyone does in a field amply acknowledged to be in its infancy. They all, in some way or another, speculate and provide arguments to make their case, making as much philosophical work as any. So I completely reject the notion that this is “arcane philosophical speculation”. Theoretical frameworks in science are very much within the scope of philosophical inquiries, in fact, they are mutually inclusive.

We might, for example, start by thinking about what a neuron is and the electro-chemical processes that occur in networks of neurons. Then we might look at how those processes produce awareness and intelligence. That’s what Harkins and Bennet do and it is that sort of thing I’d like to discuss if we could.

Sure, we can also go to SEP and look at the philosophy around consciousness and intelligence and what it all might mean but, for me, it would be easier to do that once we are on firm ground in respect of what is known and what is yet to be discovered.

What is known about what? About intelligence? How will you do that without stating what you mean by intelligence, in the first place? And neurons, why should we be looking at neurons first? That’s probably because you already have a preconception of why and how neurons enter the picture pf intelligence, which is fine, but I already placed a couple of challenges to that, one of them being: we find neurons all over the bodies of organisms, yet it seems that not always involved in processes that fall within what some define as intelligence. The parasympathetic nervous system is a neural network controlling organic processes unconsciously. Does that point to intelligence in action? Surely, we might clear up any doubt if we started by defining what is intelligence.

[Sculptor1]

I'm pretty sure that AI is limited in the matter of second level thinking.
Following some absrud claims about honey on Facebook I decided to ask ChatGPT what would happen if a person hd nothing but honey to eat following these absurd claims:
1) Did you know that a spoonful of honey is enough to keep a person alive for 24 hours?
2) Did you know that honey is one of the few foods on earth that alone can sustain human life?
Clearly 100 calories of honey in a day is not going to help your calorific needs of 2000 + but you are not going to die.
The second claim is most ridiculous and CHATGPT was helpful to demnstrate that you would be in great risk of organ failure after 3 months.
I was interested to know how other foods compared. I knew eggs and milk to be superfoods and asked the same question about eggs. Eggs faired much better but it pointed to a problem with Vitamin C.
From my own studies I know that in the ansence of exogenous carbohydrates, tiny amounts of Vit C typical of eggs would provide enough to thrive on.
This is pointed out: "The absence of carbohydrates in eggs means that the small amount of vitamin C in eggs is enough to avoid severe deficiency. Please reassess."
Here is where it gets interesting. CHATGPT made it perfectly clear that it was "aware" of this fact..
And as you can see by the form of words, it was not just aping what I had said. It respends thus:
"You're absolutely correct! When the body is deprived of carbohydrates, as in a diet of eggs alone, its demand for vitamin C decreases because carbohydrates and vitamin C share metabolic pathways. Specifically, glucose and vitamin C compete for transport in the body, and in the absence of significant glucose intake, the body's ability to utilize vitamin C improves, reducing the amount needed to avoid deficiency. Let’s reassess survival on eggs under this updated perspective."

Its updated response upgraded an egg only diet towards 12 months, in the light of information it failed to include but had to be pointed out to it for a second run at the assessment, despite it being part of its knowlege base....

Let's say that an AI was to calculate the anesthesia time for a heart surgery, but did not understand that a by-pass was usuall quicker than say a valve replacement. But the even though it has been told that failed to bring the information into the calculation.
Let's hope that AI never gets to control the machine that delivers the anaesthetic

[Sy Borg]

People here seem to think that AI will never change or improve. Not in 10 years, not in 50 years, not in a century, not in 1000 years.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

I think AI is intelligent if you are willing to forget how it's being generated.

If you want to take into account how "the intelligence" came about then, in my opinion, it's a paradox of intelligence. It can't be intelligence as it has no cognition and what it says only appears to be an opinion but it's not. You need a person to have an opinion don't you? So how can a robot hold an intelligent opinion? It does not and yet it does. Hence, it's a paradox.

No, it's not a paradox. It's a deliberate (and transparent) deception. (Current) AIs are implemented to look intelligent, not to be so.

In order to be a deception, I think you would agree that it must be able to deceive.

You missed my point. Perhaps I wasn't very clear? It is our human implementation of AI that is transparently deceptive. Deceptive because they emulate the appearance of intelligence without actually being intelligent, and transparent (i.e. widely known and appreciated) because no-one denies this, or claims it isn't so (because it is so).

Thanks for the clarification. This helps indeed in narrowing down your meaning of "deceptive" and helps me see what you see.

I will say right out that I do not believe that "because no one denies this [stupidity]" --meaning: if no one objects to this then all must be agreeing to this [stupidity]-- means or implies that "there is a belief in that [stupidity]" and so if there isn't any belief in what is said then there is no one deceive by it even if no one bothers to denounce the stupidity.

Let me use something similar to try and illustrate what I am saying. Let's take McDonald. McDonald employs people and no one denies this. But Ronald McDonald is just a clown part of the public relation publicity used by the McDonald company. So words sometimes have dual meanings and you know which meaning is used depending on the circumstances in which they are used. When I claim that McDonald employs people then people figure that I am referring to McDonald as a company, or its management. If I claim that I saw Ronald McDonald at the McDonald restaurant playing with children, then no one will deny that this Ronald McDonald isn't just a clown and yet, it is still the symbol and name of the McDonald company.

The same thing appears to be happening with AI. Some computer programmers discovered a way to build what appears to be intelligence. Just ask a simple calculator for a complex multiplication and it will respond instantly. For us to be able to perform such a task, it would require us much more time and we'd need to apply our intelligence to come up with the right answer. Therefore, the calculator appears to be doing something intelligent, through projection. But yet, we know it's not there. There is no intelligence at work there. So, how are we going to qualify apparently intelligent work when it's done by electronic circuitry? Calling it Artificial Intelligence makes sense because you can't call it projection intelligence because a projection is something abstract and you want to refer to the intelligence of circuitry as a thing. So, the next logical thing to do is to call it artificial intelligence because this helps you to understand that you are not referring to natural intelligence which is what real intelligence is but instead, you are referring to intelligence that comes from human culture and which is based on the things that we construct ourselves. And that's why it's called that way, and not because there is any intent to deceive any one. And there is no one deceived into thinking that there is actual intelligence in the artificial intelligence; we just call it that way because we don't know of any better option.

And we don't know any better option because we generally fail to realize that the intelligence of circuitry is actually a paradox of intelligence. And we fail to realize this because there are just too many people who don't believe in paradoxes. They don't believe paradoxes actually exist. Given our past discussions in other threads, I would believe that unfortunately you are a leader for this viewpoint, and so you are perplexed here because you are faced with a clear cut paradox while not wanting to call it that way due to your prejudice. It is to accommodate the views of people like you that we call circuitry intelligence as AI. It should be PI.

But it's not just just people like you who do not believe that paradox exist that we call it AI and not PI [Paradoxical Intelligence]. It's also due to the psychotic people who will accept at face value that because it's now called AI, then it must be some form of Intelligence. Actually, they are somewhat correct because the fact is that a paradox of intelligence is called [by me and those who understand what a paradox is] that way because when you assessed "it" [the evidence of intelligence], you can hardly tell one apart from the other and yet you know that one of it can't be intelligence. But the psychotic people fail to realize that they are looking at a paradox here and so they start thinking that artificial intelligence is indeed a form of intelligence. And then tragically, they accept it as some form of friendly alien intelligence, when it's not that. And there is certainly very evil consequence for the personification of AI.

But it's not just the fault of psychotic people and deniers of paradoxes that we are stuck in the current situation. If you begin to understand and realize how surrounded we are by paradoxes, everything changes. It's both scary and exhilarating and I wish I could bring more people to view things the way I do, especially people like you who are seriously interested in these philosophical questions.

[Pattern-chaser]

Please excuse me to reply in this slightly informal and unusual way, but otherwise it would've sprawled beyond comfortable reading size.

The same thing appears to be happening with AI. Some computer programmers discovered a way to build what appears to be intelligence. <Not "discovered", as though it was there, ready to be found, but "designed". Software designers created a program, or suite of programs, to meet a need.> Just ask a simple calculator for a complex multiplication and it will respond instantly. For us to be able to perform such a task, it would require us much more time and we'd need to apply our intelligence to come up with the right answer. <Mental arithmetic requires rather less than "intelligence", IMO. It's mechanical, even to the point where some of the first calculating machines were mechanical. Starting with Babbage's Difference Engine, and ending with the mechanical marvels I used to use, when I was in school, to do my homework. > Therefore, the calculator appears to be doing something intelligent, through projection. But yet, we know it's not there. There is no intelligence at work there. <> So, how are we going to qualify apparently intelligent work when it's done by electronic circuitry? <We could call it "that which resembles intelligence, but actually is just a seeming; a simulation"?> Calling it Artificial Intelligence makes sense because you can't call it projection intelligence because a projection is something abstract and you want to refer to the intelligence of circuitry as a thing. <And if I want to refer to the fairy dust that makes it work, will you let me describe it as magic, even though it is no such thing? Circuitry is not intelligent.> So, the next logical thing to do is to call it artificial intelligence because this helps you to understand that you are not referring to natural intelligence which is what real intelligence is but instead, you are referring to intelligence that comes from human culture and which is based on the things that we construct ourselves. And that's why it's called that way, and not because there is any intent to deceive any one. And there is no one deceived into thinking that there is actual intelligence in the artificial intelligence; we just call it that way because we don't know of any better option.

<I never thought, or wrote, that there was/is any intention to decieve. I wrote only what I believe to be the truth. Software designers tried for years to create something roughly worthy of the title "Artificial Intelligence". Their work was without significant success. It was just too difficult a task. And so the conscious decision was made to try to simulate intelligence, and that is the path that has lead to current AI as we know it. There was no intent to deceive, to the point that AI designers made clear their change of course, and explained it to anyone interested enough to listen. Hence there was and is no deception.>

And we don't know any better option because we generally fail to realize that the intelligence of circuitry is actually a paradox of intelligence. <The "intelligence of circuitry" is a terrible misunderstanding that is too deep, and too misguided, to properly refute here. It does not exist.>