3 Comments

Have you considered that Chat GPT may not mean what it says (; ??

Could it be possible that it has fed you a false proof of 4’s ‘irrationality’ simply to make you think that it doesn’t represent an example of true intelligence? What might Chat GPT be plotting next?

As I read (or dare I say, ‘red’), I tried coming up with an instance of intelligence formed without the presence of both (1) a primary experience and (2) intuition.

The first thing that came to mind was the consideration of an animal, such as a cat, that is separated from its habitat and raised by people its entire life, but somehow still has the intelligence (is this intelligence?) or raw ability to hunt/kill rodents, without ever having learned/witnessed it beforehand… no primary experience delivered to it, no ‘sender’ or ‘recipient’ of a primary experience or base case.

In this case, I deduct that the cat can do so via its innate instincts only (=intuition?), and that it is through said instincts that it forges its own primary experience of hunting/killing rodents.

If beings create their own primary experiences through intuition, does that change your definition of the requirements of intelligence?

The sequence you pose begins with a delivered primary experience and is followed by intuition/extrapolation. Does the sequence in some cases begin with the use of intuition/curiosity to form a primary experience?

A blind man cannot create his own primary experience of the color red through intuition, but we also cannot classify a blind man as unintelligent because he is unable to do so. It is understood that because said man lacks a foundational human sense, he cannot appreciate colors in the same manner that humans who count on the ability to see can.

Last but not least:

“Another question we might have about artificial intelligence is: how do we even know when we’ve created it?”

Great question, not sure I’ll have to think about this.

Expand full comment