Aren't humans themselves essentially human made?
Maybe a better definition would be non-human (or inorganic if we want to include intelligence like e.g. dolphins)?
No, not in the sense in which the word "made" is being used here.
> Maybe a better definition would be non-human (or inorganic if we want to include intelligence like e.g. dolphins)?
Neither of these work. Calling intelligence in animals "artificial" is absurd, and "inorganic" arbitrarily excludes "head cheese" style approaches to building artificial intelligence.
"Artificial" strongly implies mimicry of something that occurs naturally, and is derived from the same root as "artifice", which can be defined as "to construct by means of skill or specialized art". This obviously excludes the natural biological act of reproduction that produces a newborn human brain (and support equipment) primed to learn and grow; reportedly, sometimes people don't even know they're pregnant until they go into labor (and figure out that's what's happening).
It turns out that some (many, in fact) words mean different things in different contexts. My comment makes an explicit argument concerning the connotations and nuances of the word "made" used in this context, and you have not responded to that argument.
Maybe you should have written a substantive response to my comments instead of trying and failing to dunk on me. Maybe you don't understand as much as you think you do.
Humans evolved, but yeah the definition can be a bit hard to understand since it is hard to separate things. That is why I brought up the artificial insemination example since it deals with this.
> Maybe a better definition would be non-human (or inorganic if we want to include intelligence like e.g. dolphins)?
We also have artificial lakes, they are inorganic but human made.