throwaway20304

Mercedes did something similar, though: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-63743597

Well not sure where you are, but where in EU I am, you can modify the insides of your car (people attach entire apartments to the insides of their cars...), and there's nothing wrong about stuff sticking outside - you just need to attach a red flag if it's over 1.5m out of the car (maybe red flame would be enough?).

The modified rear door might be a problem, but where I am you could simply keep the original open, or detach it.

I don't know anybody who implicitly assumes that the I in AI is a comparison, people around me understand it as a term for a set of traits, regardless of the level of performance. That's how the term AGI came to be, to distinguish between "intelligent but not necessarily like a human" (AI) and "generally intelligent [like a human]" (AGI).

Do you also think that "intelligent alien life in space" means comparable to humans? What if we find something capable of reasoning, abstract thinking, rationality, adaptibility, etc - but much, much dumber than humans? That's intelligence, comparison to humans doesn't change anything about that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence - how could there be animal intelligence if "intelligence" means comparable to humans? "Crows are intelligent but nowhere near human-level" - this statement wouldn't make any sense if you're right, but it actually does make sense, IMHO.

> There's a reason AI is moving farther and farther away and we're creating new, finer, terms like ML, shape recognition, etc.

That thing with AI is called moving goalposts. And the finer terms - yeah of course we need to be able to be specific about our software, doesn't mean that's not AI. We talked about shape recognition in neuropsychology for much longer than in AI, same for many more terms that will certainly be reused soon.

My point is, it's not a comparison at all. Intelligence is a trait, you either have it or not. We also use the same word for "how smart you are", but that measurement doesn't change anything about AI being intelligent or not. It can be dumb, but intelligent.

I never thought of the I in AI as a comparison to a human of average intelligence. I always understood it means intelligence as in "capable of reasoning", regardless of whether it's "kinda dumb" or "super smart" - the same way we speak about animals not being intelligent, and are looking for "intelligent alien life" in space - the aliens might not be very smart, perhaps even totally dumb, but still intelligent. The same applies for AI, perhaps it doesn't match even the least performing humans, but it's still intelligent.

I still don't quite understand it. Where does the battery get the energy? I understand that there's no difference in a circuit, but why is this comparison relevant? Many power sources are way less efficient that using a battery, but we need to charge the battery.

How can you compare a generator to a battery? How do you charge the battery without a generator?

Kinda dumb, but still intelligent. The sibling comment explains it well.

Do you think people with IQ below 80 are not intelligent?