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.
What is intelligence?
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.