Another, much more acceptable flaw, is to think of intelligence as a scalar quantity.
The main flaw in superintelligence arguments is to think of intelligence as an intrinsic property of an agent, like the height of a tower.
-
-
-
The root of these issues is the lack of a proper definition for intelligence.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Nick Bostrom's "Superintelligence" talks about this subject in a (kinda) formal and objective way, you should check it out
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thinking aloud: The value of "intelligence" to assign an entity depends on the observer, Yes, so it's not intrinsic, but... 1/
-
... isn't whatever manisfests as intelligence intrinsic? The mechanism that seems as intelligence to the observer, i.e. Ur thoughts, plz? 2/
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
One can view intelligence as the capability to find regularities in data. Compression ratio's are objective measure: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/43e5/b43965aa4099e75110e4fd8e5458efb82fd8.pdf …
-
Not to pull a Donald Trump on you, but see this tweet from 2015https://twitter.com/fchollet/status/568998165354926081 …
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
What exactly do you mean by `intrinsic`?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
as opposed to collective / emergent between agents or parts of a system?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.