We don’t have a mathematical definition for intelligence or artificial like we do for a Turing machine, but most useful concepts don’t have precise definitions, like human, air, porn, drugs, medicine. I don’t see how there is anything disingenuous about calling computer programs artificially intelligent because that same term describes sci-fi computer programs which display intelligence. A lot of robots in sci-fi aren’t superintelligent and they usually have robotic voices and vocabulary choices and sometimes difficulty understanding words that aren’t in the dictionary or answering slightly vague questions, things which LLMs have no trouble with.
Saying the mount Rushmore carvings was formed by erosion is a simple explanation with few assumptions that is possible if you assume erosion happens sufficiently randomly, but it’s an absurd explanation nonetheless. Occam’s razor is just a rule of thumb to apply to competing explanations which are similarly reasonable and even then it’s not telling you which is more likely to be true but which is the simplest model to work with.
I don’t see how there is anything disingenuous about calling computer programs artificially intelligent because that same term describes sci-fi computer programs which display intelligence.
In a vacuum, sure. But in the context where a small number of companies are circulating billions of dollars between each other and have a vested interest in overstating what their product is capable of? Very disingenuous. It’s the big financial bubble of the 21st century. We can have a conversation where we ignore the cultural and historical context, but frankly its not an interesting conversation.
I don’t think the Rushmore example… works? You’re trying to make an example where Occam Razor points to something we obviously know is wrong, but you’re first assuming a lack of context. Erosion is not the simplest explanation given everything we already know. I know Occam’s Razor is a rule of thumb. It doesn’t dismiss any other origin for life. But the same time, you cannot dismiss life emerging out of physics and chemistry just because you feel it is absurd.
I mean, you can dismiss it. Follow you gut and stick to what you believe. Quite a lot of good scientists have made important discoveries doing just that! But more than a gut feeling is needed to actually convince anyone else.
We don’t have a mathematical definition for intelligence or artificial like we do for a Turing machine, but most useful concepts don’t have precise definitions, like human, air, porn, drugs, medicine. I don’t see how there is anything disingenuous about calling computer programs artificially intelligent because that same term describes sci-fi computer programs which display intelligence. A lot of robots in sci-fi aren’t superintelligent and they usually have robotic voices and vocabulary choices and sometimes difficulty understanding words that aren’t in the dictionary or answering slightly vague questions, things which LLMs have no trouble with.
Saying the mount Rushmore carvings was formed by erosion is a simple explanation with few assumptions that is possible if you assume erosion happens sufficiently randomly, but it’s an absurd explanation nonetheless. Occam’s razor is just a rule of thumb to apply to competing explanations which are similarly reasonable and even then it’s not telling you which is more likely to be true but which is the simplest model to work with.
In a vacuum, sure. But in the context where a small number of companies are circulating billions of dollars between each other and have a vested interest in overstating what their product is capable of? Very disingenuous. It’s the big financial bubble of the 21st century. We can have a conversation where we ignore the cultural and historical context, but frankly its not an interesting conversation.
I don’t think the Rushmore example… works? You’re trying to make an example where Occam Razor points to something we obviously know is wrong, but you’re first assuming a lack of context. Erosion is not the simplest explanation given everything we already know. I know Occam’s Razor is a rule of thumb. It doesn’t dismiss any other origin for life. But the same time, you cannot dismiss life emerging out of physics and chemistry just because you feel it is absurd.
I mean, you can dismiss it. Follow you gut and stick to what you believe. Quite a lot of good scientists have made important discoveries doing just that! But more than a gut feeling is needed to actually convince anyone else.