Originally Posted by dcuny
I've already given a key criteria for intelligence. That's not a negative definition, but it's also not a complete definition.
So what I'm observing is that despite the very real fact that you are unable to define "intelligence" you somehow can claim whether or not something is intelligent. I find this quite baffling. This is no different if I were to claim whether or not that object is a pop-up toaster but when pressed to define what a pop-up toaster is I throw up up my hands and say "I don't know !"

Vocabulary terms are the "atoms" of logic, and logical ideas are the "molecules" of science, and scientific principles and observations give rise to the "compounds" of truth. Without an agreed upon vocabulary you're stuck at the logic-less state. Key criterias are far less valuable than crisp definitions. With observations, this is how we know the earth isn't the center of the solar system. We crisply define earth, we crisply define center and we crisply define solar system.

Several years ago I was asked to write a book review for the National Science Foundation or some Academy of Science; I frankly don't remember (not important). But the book was titled "Writing in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics" by Meier and Rishel; the book was written to help college-level mathematics professors build better curicula for their students. I wrote a very positive review and the upshot of the book might best be summarized by their words.

"Writing requires thinking; and thinking is what we, as teachers want to encourage. In what follows, we hope to convice you that to get students to absorb mathematics, or any other subject, better, you need to have them think about, then write about that subject".

Later in the book, they imply that if you can't describe (in writing) the complex ideas associated with multivariate calculus or differential equations in a way that your high school educated grand mother can understand, then you really don't understand the material. Clearly, vocabulary is "atomic" in this process. This little paperback was an enjoyable read all those years ago and has paid me dividends throughout my career and beyond. If you can't articulate it, you don't understand it.

You and I threw around some BIG terms like create and intelligence; and to ensure we could effectively communicate I met you halfway and gave my definition for create. When asked to define "intelligence" you are unable to. As we say in aerospace "We are experiencing a massive flame-out"; meaning it's time to pop the canopy and eject.

But before we end this and FWIW, since my college days I 've been facinated by psychology, brain science, and complex systems. During my career I trained multi-layer ANNs (artificial neural networks) and began studying emergent properties, cellula automata and complex adaptive systems. I am now interested in today's rendition(s) of AI, animal psychology, music and music therapy. I'm also interested in how all of these subjects interact on various continuums with what we call morals and ethics and what the near to medium term future might look like in these fields. As such, I was hoping that someone here with overlapping interests might want to explore these subjects on a semi-formal basis.

Originally Posted by dcuny
AI has come a long way since then, but no amount of semantics is going to convince me that neural networks are intelligent. There's just too much that's invisibly supplied by people.
This is the second problem I have. Nothing can convince you. Not semantics, not logic, not truth. A calcified brittle-bone approach is not how good exploration is done, neither how good science is done. The fields of thermodynamics or structural mechanics for example are centuries old and can be considered mature. AI on the other hand is far from mature and might even be considered infantile. At this time, there is little convergence among theorists who have begun to study complex systems as a class. It is not a field in which a crisp and unified theory has already been developed; and I don't expect to see one in the next few years. But if you'd like to take a week, a month or even a year to ponder and articulate what you think intelligence is, I'd be happy to resume this conversation publically or privately. Some may come to this forum to die, I come to this forum to grow smile

One thing is for sure. In the big scheme of things, your opinon doesn't matter, neither mine. But the work of Sam Altman, Microsoft, Google and other movers and shakers does matter. And I'll be having fun watching and pondering what emerges. We are living in a truly exciting time.

https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677
BiaB 2025 Windows
For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.