but here a human being (and I suspect not the only one) names a computer program as "intelligent". The theory has to take this case into account to make it fit in its definition of intelligence: the will of human beings naming things overrides everything else. Maybe there is something else that humans have and this program doesn't, but another name has to be found for it if enough humans agree that this fit as what "intelligent" means.
> You cannot be "right by definition", you're not omniscient.
This doesn't make sense. Definitions are outside rightness / wrongness.
I take the A to apply to the I, ie., AI is artificially Intelligent. Its not actually intelligent.
We didnt arrive at a notion of intelligent via digital computers. We have been talking about it for thousands of years, at least.
I am talking about the pretheoretical, intuitive notion of intelligence that doesn't prejudge the question of AI. What is it we call intelligent?
Intelligence is a kind of rapid adaption and coping to environmental change. It's a way of being responsive to an environment. Its a kind of radical underminism of response: a thermometer's response is determined. An animal, in having reasons to do things, is radically under-determined.
And thus, in acquriing specific hisotries, animals bring their own reasons to environemnts, and thus are able to cope with a vast amount of sudden change that would, eg., destroy a thermometer.
And what we are concerned with, both with real AI, and with animals is systems which are in the world with us, in this way: that are likewise radically able to cope.
> Intelligence is a kind of rapid adaption and coping to environmental change.
Who's the "we", there ? I have absolutely never heard anything remotely close to the definition of intelligence given there
Meaning that with enough words and their relations, sufficient complexity forms for its processing to result in intelligence.
Remember that an AI can process far more textual data than we can. It is still orders of magnitude smaller the amounts of information we process through our senses, but it is still a start.
Your theory is wrong.
Those thing which count as intelligent aren't intelligent because they're finding statistical associations in historical datasets that have been pre-made and pre-disambiguated by people.
You don't know this, because any time you theorise to explain, you require empirical investigation and decades/centuries of science. You cannot be "right by definition", you're not omniscient.
The reason that animals are intelligent isnt their cognition, narrowly. It's their bodies, broadly, which produce the input cognition requires.
In "doing all the hard work" by manufacturing data for machiens to process, we can produce computational models of cognition -- but these immitate intelligence, precisley because, the thing which we call intelligent is the very production of that data.