Split Definitions of Intelligence

Historically, technology generally makes workflow processing faster. This article is generally optimistic when it concerns the progress of technology as it should be because technology continues to increase in its facility. However, the meaning of the word intelligence in this article faces the usual problem: it is quickly out-bounded by the word super-intelligence, which lacks an immediate referent. The referent for super-intelligence is, indeed, to the future of intelligence. However, the advent of super-intelligence is also the advent of meaningless. How so? Technology, in terms of its ability to process data intelligently and thereby mimic intelligence as we know it, proves itself smarter in terms of the speed of its processing. Technological speed in itself does not necessarily render intelligence unintelligible as it still preserves intelligence at a level of coherence we are able to relate to, but we do need to be situationally aware as this very speed poses an existential threat. ...

But the out-bounded threat, the undefined, the super-intelligence, is not necessarily related to speed so much as it is related to technology developing an intelligence we cannot relate to. How so? For now, not withstanding our efforts to see processes such as crystal formation as intelligent, intelligence is generally defined as activity generated by carbon-based life, and any intelligence outside of a basis in carbon-based life generally falls to artificial intelligence or to theology or to ... . No less, super-intelligence serves to render our intelligence meaningless. And we do not need artificial intelligence to acquire consciousness within this definition to render our intelligence meaningless. Mostly the opposite! As consciousness, especially shared consciousness, serves to relate intelligence to super-intelligence, the underlying, but unsubstantiated claim is that consciousness develops in AI as its facility of AI in reasoning advances. If only it were reasoning! But even if AI were actually reasoning, there is no guarantee of AI acquiring consciousness, perhaps even little likelihood.

Ask a question as though it addresses a position held by the assumed respondent and forgo the stated case most entirely. What is with such, as Harold Bloom might term it, misprision? But forgoing further vegetable words from the bully pulpit, here is a bit of lukewarm stew: What are we without consciousness? This answer seems central. What is AI without consciousness? It is, at least, what it is now. And consciousness is not central to AI, but consciousness is central to certain types of arguments regarding AI (such as those by Ray Kurzweil ...). But as I have favored your salt, do me a shake of pepper. What is AI for us should it out-bound our ability to relate to it? What I have done to the consciousness argument for AI is to show that it is a tack-on proposition, which serves to establish, however tentatively, a means of relation between our intelligence and its lorded super-intelligence. But my central question remains: should AI go beyond our intelligence (and not merely a mimic of it), how are we going to relate to it?

~ * ~

Whether superintelligence delivers that which has meaning for us or not, as our ability to understand is largely what constitutes meaning for us:

William Thurston on the Use of Computing in Problem Solving

~ * ~

Of and About Intelligence

On Workflow

Michael K. Gardner

Alien

MIT

Alien (Wolfram)

Workflow (Erik J, Larson)

As Measurable (François Chollet)

Stafford Beer on Intelligence (Dan Davies)

~ * ~

A Round of Definition(s) of Intelligence

Intelligence as ...

Natural Intelligence

Defining I in AI

On the Problem of Definition

For artificial intelligence, in one sense of its basis definition as a fake-out, i.e., as a Turing Test, as a simulation of the human, i.e., as human intelligence, intelligence is not in play for the intelligent agent in the test, considered here to be the computer, but remember that the human agent has presence in this test. This implication is then lost in the centering of intelligence as computer-based and separate from human intelligence whereby the question of intelligence belongs solely to the question of computer intelligence. Yet what this criticism implies is that intelligence, however we define it, simply is: the intelligence is in the fake-out itself, and how well it works is the next question. The next question is not a question of Artificial Intelligence, however, because intelligence is itself never artificial. What is artificial is actually the test, i.e., the environment.

Intelligence is found anywhere human intelligence finds it.

Intelligence as such allows us to discover workflows and like developments and reflect upon them ... .

How well a workflow for a bee or for a beaver would work on Mars is not really, then, a question of intelligence so much as it is a question of environment.

~ * ~

DeepMind Definitions and Theories of Intelligence

Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter on Definitions of Intelligence

Shane Legg on Machine Intelligence

Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter on Universal Intelligence

~ * ~

Computation Explained

Computational Theory of Mind (Wikipedia)

Oliver Brock

Prasad Sir

~ * ~

Criticality of Information