Hacker News Reader

Comment by glassounds | Hacker News Reader

I'm sure a better philosophical definition exists but off the top of my head:

An intelligence should be able to actually understand its input / output (rather than appear to understand), be able to reason about itself recursively*, be able to learn and generally have state, be able to have an internal thought process without being prompted**.

Some emotion isn't strictly a requirement but likely a desirable quality for human interaction.

* "Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid" and "I am a Strange Loop" are meant to cover this but I've only started the latter

** A sci-fi book series called Old Man's War features a race of aliens that are intelligent but not sentient due to not having an internal thought process and self awareness, which does raise the question of whether it's possible to have one without the other.

View on HN

> An intelligence should be able to actually understand its input / output (rather than appear to understand), be able to reason about itself recursively, be able to learn and generally have state, be able to have an internal thought process without being prompted*.*

How does that differ from intelligence? (Assuming you were actually trying to answer the question)

I don't understand the question, the comment above asked for a possible definition of an artificial intelligence. An artificial intelligence is an intelligence. I'd assumed "and not natural / created" was a given

Edit: why would I not be trying to answer the question?

> An artificial intelligence is an intelligence.

If artificial intelligence is exactly the same as intelligence, then wouldn't we just call that intelligence? People won't use words if there is no useful meaning conveyed. I am not sure you have made clear what useful information is found within "artificial".

> I'd assumed "and not natural / created" was a given

And, really, what does it mean to be not natural or created in this context anyway? The dictionary definition is kind of hand wavy to begin with, leaving whether humans with intelligence are natural or created up to interpretation.

> made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural.

Artificial is an adjective here, as in a type of intelligence that is artificial. It's not exactly the same, it's a subcategory.

You seem to be using "artificial" as "mock", as in "seems like but isn't". That's not what I think people mean when they refer to AI in this context.

If e.g. humans are living in a simulation then it's completely fair to say they're AIs. If humans are a product of nature then they're not.

>> made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally

Implying that humans don't produce humans, or that human intelligence is artificial?

> It's not exactly the same, it's a subcategory.

So, again, for what reason would anyone take the time to call it "artificial intelligence"/"AI" when, as a subcategory, the intent is already captured by "intelligence"? Terms need to have useful meaning to stand up, and we are still not clear on where you see "artificial" as being useful.

Perhaps the problem here is that you misunderstood the original question? It asked how you would define "AI" as a single term, not how you would define "artificial" and "intelligence" independently. I think you've done a reasonable job of the latter, but that doesn't justify the "AI moniker" as described originally.

> You seem to be using "artificial" as "mock", as in "seems like but isn't".

I don't remember using it at all, unless you mean where I asked you what "artificial" adds to the term. What are you referring to here, exactly?

> I don't remember using it at all, unless you mean where I asked you what "artificial" adds to the term. What are you referring to here, exactly?

I mistook you for another commenter.

What's your end goal here? You're welcome to share your own definition of AI but this feels like sealioning. I think I've been clear enough, if I haven't this comment thread will just have to live without another ultra clarification of my "off the top of my head" comment.

> What's your end goal here?

To understand the missing gaps you have left open. I assume you took the time to respond to the original comment because you wanted others to understand you. But, with those gaps still open, we don't yet. If my assumption is wrong, I'll accept it, but then if you don't want to interact why bring your personal musings here and not to your private journal?

> I think I've been clear enough

Okay. Perhaps you could explain your interpretation of my questions towards you to help me understand how I didn't make myself clear when asking them? I had hoped my questions and associated explanations made clear what I didn't understand, but obviously not. Happy to rephrase it in a way that is clear once I have a grasp of what is missing.

> You're welcome to share your own definition of AI

I could try if you wish, but under what specific context? Words and terms often change in meaning when the situation around them changes. There is almost never just one definition.

> I could try if you wish, but under what specific context? Words and terms often change in meaning when the situation around them changes. There is almost never just one definition.

Why not just say "In this context, this is what AI would be"? You can supply a context.

Because communication requires understanding, and arbitrarily making up a random context gives no understanding to what the other person is thinking? If I wanted to communicate with myself, I could simply write in my private journal. Is this not the same reason you have asked the question you did?

> If artificial intelligence is exactly the same as intelligence

Artificial means "human created, not naturally occuring", humans evolved in nature while artificial intelligence is something we humans constructed using our intelligence rather than just breeding naturally.

Its like how artificial insemination is when you make a woman pregnant without sex, the natural way is not artificial.

But in that case you're just adding an additional descriptor to "intelligence". Like "fast car". In the same vein as the original question, what would justify a "FC" moniker? Nothing, of course. There is nothing uniquely interesting about a fast car over any car to justify its own special term.

Nobody asked how you would define "artificial" and "intelligence" independently. The dictionary already has done that more than throughly. Logically, a definition for "AI" needs to be all encompassing. There are some out there that accomplish that, but you have straight up failed.

That's doesn't seem like a measurable or testable definition.

How do we know if bees understand what they're doing? It's agreed that they display intelligence and intelligent behavior, but not by your definition.

If it's not measurable or testable then it's not useful.

It's not measurable externally perhaps if the mechanism sufficiently mimics intelligence, but I'd argue that to do that the mechanism actually needs to answer at least some of the criteria above. It's also not necessarily something you can't measure depending on how the AI is built and what it exposes.

Are bees intelligent or do we use the same language in this case as "intelligent design", i.e. the behavior is complex and impressive?

Also this murkier for animals since they do possess some of the traits I mentioned like learning.

Although as I said this was off the top of my head, not an official definition.

But the term may just not be useful. If I record a billion conversations and record the statistically most likely answers to statements people make, it's going to make a reasonable facsimile of a conversation. Is that now anything like intelligence, artificial or otherwise?

simply put, yes.

So Akinator is now an intelligence?

GEB and strange loop focus a lot on consciousness. Are you sure your definition isn't conflating intelligence and conscious? It feels like you are

I've touched on that in this and another comment, but my main point is that intelligence involves actual understanding rather than association or statistical analysis between input and output. Anything that we define as truly intelligent in nature also has a degree of consciousness though, so it's hard to separate the two completely when speculating.

You don't know what artificial means.

You've made that point three times now, I understand your disagreement and have addressed it

Not sufficiently though

You're creating a definition that doesn't align with the existing definitions for the words you're using.

Which is fine, it happens all the time, though it's less useful.

In your opinion do people mean the same thing when discussing enemy AI in a game engine and LLMs / AGI?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com