/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16098870
>I define intelligence simply as the ability to learn and understand something
how would you propose to quantify that and test for it?

>>16098870
>learn and understand
What about creativity then? You know, the ability to apply what you learned and understood?

>>16098870
So if I give you an ordered list of 50 random brands to read back and you forget some of them or mess up the order, its because you don't understand how branding works and haven't learned marketing?

>>16098870
The ability to do what you haven't been taught.

>>16099313
Sure, you were so intelligence for knowing how to fart, babble, and shit yourself without being taught by someone else.

>>16098870
Is AI intelligent yet?

>>16099326
Depends on what your definition of is is.

>>16099321
Certain things need to be excluded, I guess, but I'm not wrong.

>>16099337
Sure, you are so intelligent for dodging the point and ignoring your faults and the faults in your thought processes without anyone teaching you to cope with you own cognitive dissonance.

The capacity and quality to solve a problem. Sinple as.

Understanding what you learnt is important, but it's a piece to use it as a tool. Part of the quality of the solution is how do you exploit those things you learnt.

>>16099212
Because according to logic, things are either true or not true. Either you're capable of learning and understanding something or you're not. If you're capable, then the only question is how long it takes. If you're not capable, then it's impossible.
>>16099272
Creativity is combining two or more ideas into one, which also requires understanding and thus part of intelligence.
>>16099313
>>16099281
I suppose there is a baseline intelligence where you innately know something even if you've never seen it before (like a bird knowing how to build a nest) but rarely someone can innately know Calculus even if they can learn it faster.
>>16099391
You can only solve problems once you gain an understanding on what to do with the available tools you've acquired.

>>16099429
>rarely someone can innately know Calculus even if they can learn it faster.
People can throw objects at targets and intuitively calculate the trajectories that calculus formalizes without having the formal semantic training, with something collectively defined like language such as math, how can someone even know words and symbolic relationships without learning about the symbols and their meaning?

>>16098870
the problem is defining intelligence in a way that doesn't make certain ethnicities seem unintelligent.

>>16099344
>>16099429
I suppose you could just say that shitting yourself is not intelligent, and leave the definition as in >>16099313 .

>>16099429
I'm not talking about something innate, more like what you can solve by your own wits. (rather than just following a taught method, which doesn't really require intelligence, only good memory)

>>16099462
If you already defined intelligence as activities that you weren't taught, shitting yourself would have to be taught to you to be not intelligent.

>only good memory
Memory is a huge part of intelligence.
Methods of philosophical like the scientific method still have a lot of room for interpretation, improvisation, and general cleverness that goes far beyond rote memorization.

>>16099487
Shitting is too undemanding to actually matter.

Memory is distinct from intelligence. A computer has an excellent memory, and can follow methods flawlessly, but its intelligence is nonexistent.

>>16099631
Computers have already figured out how to beat all the video games made last century without be taught, they have even figured out undiscovered strategies and easter eggs, so by that standard of intelligence, digital ai is already measurable more intelligent than all the people who have ever lived.

>>16098870
What's the difference between "learn" and "understand"? How do you measure the ability? Part of any psychologists operant definition will be the measurement otherwise it's not useful to them

>>16099429
>Because according to logic, things are either true or not true. Either you're capable of learning and understanding something or you're not. If you're capable, then the only question is how long it takes. If you're not capable, then it's impossible.
yes, you're saying that's the condition, but how do you test for that?

>>16099429
This nigga never heard of trinary logic

>>16099429
>Creativity is combining two or more ideas into one
ask me how i know you're retarded

>>16099962
Ask me anything and I can assess whether it's possible to determine it as true or false

>>16099879
You measure the ability to understand by giving practice problems. You may think you understand something but whether you understand something or not is truly revealed when you are given a practice problem that only you alone should solve, and the problem can be about anything. But there's also whether it's possible to learn it and understand; just because you don't currently understand what is in front of you doesn't always mean it's impossible to understand it if given the right amount of resources, time, and plan to fit your learning style.

>>16099981
Where do you think new ideas come from? Let's say two things exist: a cheeseburger and bacon, and society treated them as separate meals. But then one day, you decided what if I should combine them together? So you do, then bam you just invented something new, thus this is creativity.

>>16100155
The number I'm thinking of now is 7

>>16098870
d

>>16100345
It's always c duh

>>16100342
Yes, it's possible. You are either thinking about number 7 or not thinking about number 7, the only two guarantees is that it's one of those.

>>16099851
Yes, but that takes orders of magnitide more computing power than what I described.

>>16100612
So the thing you described as nonexistent is now orders of magnitude more?

>>16099272
>What about creativity then?
Thats Applied Learning.

Or in otherwords; FAFO.

>>16100627
The computer can't do it. It just blindly follows the methods it was programmed to follow.

>>16099851
Yes, it is capable of living at a common idiot but with billions of years of muscle memory in the genes until it explores every gap or overlap of some invisible tiles you cant see, but its just following logic gates.

>>16100633
No, it figures out the best strategies through raw trial and error instead of being taught, it just computes much faster, plays the games at a time scale you can't even sense, and can exhaust all the possibilities much faster than you can as a result.

>>16100639
>raw trial and error
Not intelligence.

>>16100636
Yes following its internal logic to find solutions rather than being taught solutions directly which was the standard of intelligence that was defined for this reply chain >>16099313 and computers already do that better than people now because they can measure more sensations and perform significantly more logical operation in the same amount of time.

>>16099851
No, it don't. Computers dont do things like that. They are taught all the time, thats why software engineers exist. Also, AI needs a lot of human training, so no, they don't do what they hadn't was taught before like it has intelligence.

>>16099212
>how would you propose to quantify that and test for it?
Survival and sanity.

>>16099981
>ask me how i know you're retarded
Using my left and right hemispheres inconjuction allowed for infinite novel ideas on orthogonal, where the two previous forces are if equilibrium.

Trinity.

This can also be applied all the way down to base reality interpreted many different Ways.

>>16100672
That picture is a very hyper-dimensional equilibrium, reverse engineering the other forces down to gravity, time, motion, etc, and filling in as much as possible Quantum calculations as possible, within reducibility.

Not so much a "Physiological/Mathematics" explaination, like Physics to Chemistry, one field passes the torch to another and the thinking needing is just "different".

>>16100642
>Not intelligence.
But can be an incredible too for productivity, allowing for certain niche segments to suddenly be able to outpute massive amounts of "man-power" for extremely cheap.

If your work can be streamlined by AI "proof-reading" (or inversely, you have to do the proof-ready) then do it, but you have to actually its written right, the actual test have to be done and so certain parts with be copy/pasted from other avenues.

Honest work, scientific honor, its why its called "accreditation", credit's root meaning in Latin is "trustworthyness".

>>16100665
Yes, they do that, its how game AI's taught themselves to beat the chess grandmasters and master go players, it wasn't because some alpha grandmaster sat down and taught them the best strategies, its because they evaluated how millions of games played out (without even explicitly being told the rules), played millions of games on their own, and find tuned their own algorithms to maximize the chance of victory.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7759436/

They have also solved problems uniquely, found novel strategies for winning, and discovered easter eggs in video games, then used those strategies to go on to do things like master drone racing and make new algorithms for calculating basic formulas that come up repeatedly.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.22858
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/06/07/1074184/google-deepmind-game-ai-alphadev-algorithm-code-faster/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/19369/

Its a travesty.

They butchered my institutions...for quick cash guaranteed by the state and damaging generations for power, for more cash, for more damage...

Blood...for money, but soft.

Human Sacrific++ (extra steps but the revel is real)

:^)

>>16100642
It is according to the definition of intelligence that is being argued for >>16099313.

>>16099313
I'd say thats pretty darn close, one of those things thats not 100% but thats not the point because if youre smart, you'd find it along the way.

There is a bit of 'auto-' to it, because it is what it is, and you are what you are.

>>16100695
Both posts are mine.

>>16100701
Then which one is wrong since the two posts contradict each other?

>>16098870
Wisdom, sapience, or sagacity is the ability to contemplate and act productively using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight.[1] Wisdom is associated with attributes such as unbiased judgment, compassion, experiential self-knowledge, self-transcendence, and non-attachment,[2] and virtues such as ethics and benevolence.[3][4]

>>16099313
Intuiting your optimal gene expression through lived experience of trial and error, and sometimes "nothing at all" is it.

Seperation from the emotional balances of others, they were kind to them...its a them.

One of the things that seperates men from boys, solitude, like Delta Force.

>>16099313
Super Instict, youre reacting to the Physics of the world around you, not "random", trade winds exist.

Because that is what your senses are, fundementally, a unique way of measuring reality.

I mock Sabin for being an "Instrumentalist" (I think it holds her back in Physics) but I too am an Instrumentallist, but a Phenomenological one, using my own body to measure Physics and the rest of reality.

>>16100711
>Super Instinct*

THEN you have to apply it...whole 'nother can of worms.

Most people around the world can easily live a "middle class" felt lifestyle, so most of the world's problems are about to change.

Everywhere is "up to date on current events" globally.

>>16100717
>Everywhere is "up to date on current events" globally.
Meaning its a choice, if you want, or need (some people do, theyre evolutionarily pulled to solve global issues but can be easily swayed for cash or power), but if you dont then you should know the vast majority of the world's problems are either solved or stem from corruption.

Im working on solving them, Ive been shown messages, so its a team effort on some level, but she be harsh beast.

I dont talk about things I shouldnt talk about, I know where the lines are...

People die, this was never a game.

Aww, literally shed a tear.

>>16100705
They don't contradict each other - trial and error is not intelligence.
Trial and error is good enough for a fish that lays thousands of eggs, and occassionally some 0.01% survives the ordeal into adulthood, not for a mammal.

>>16098870
I believe I can answer this question with first a statement then an example.

Intelligence = Arete = "The highest form of human potential" = "The ability to understand the effects on life which introducing knowledge has". All potential consequences that introducing knowledge has at the individual level.

For example, lets say you discovered a biological effect, that allows the human race to live indefinitely, and let's say that you discovered that there is scientific way to predict a person's future, and that everyone's future is actually predetermined no matter how hard they try. The consequences of this would be that Atheism will likely rise as a major way of thinking, due to the ability to predict a person's inescapable future, people would be sad about not having free will in deciding their own fate/destiny, and the ability to live forever if one chooses to. This would be a sad depressing world, because a majority of atheists take antidepressants, and the possibility of living forever while on happy pills is not fun.

>>16100740
>They don't contradict each other - trial and error is not intelligence.
If intelligence is just doing things without being taught, trial and error is definitely an example of doing things without being taught, so it is most certainly a contradiction to say intelligence = doing things without being taught and trial and error = doing things without being taught but intelligence != trial and error.

There are also mammals that practice r selection instead of K selection, fish aren't the only r selecting species, but this has nothing to do with your original argument and doesn't prove that it isn't a contradiction to say trial and error is not a way to do things without being taught.

>>16100705
They don't contradict each other - trial and error is not intelligence. No uderstanding is involved in the proces, and no understanding results, only a memorized method that "is known to work" that applies to that particular problem, and nothing, no mechanics, no knowledge results that could be applied elsewhere, even in similar problems.
Trial and error may be good enough for a fish that lays thousands of eggs, and occassionally some 0.01% survives the ordeal into adulthood, not for a mammal.

>>16100761
--->>>16100761 expanded, I think it answers your post as well now.

>>16100761
Maybe except this:
>doesn't prove that it isn't a contradiction to say trial and error is not a way to do things without being taught.
Trial and error involves doing a thousand of dumb things untill you happen to succeed by dumb luck. It isn't intelligent.

>>16100762
>No uderstanding (sic) is involved in the proces (sic)
No understanding would be involved in the process of doing things without being taught either, but it obviously does develop an understanding because the trials lead to understanding when error will occur which is why the algorithm tends towards much fewer errors with increasing trials to the point it eventually makes so few errors that it is not defeatable by humans who are prone to significantly more human error.

>only a memorized method that "is known to work" that applies to that particular problem
It doesn't memorize being taught anything, it develops and optimal method through trial and error.

Absolutely wrong, see >>16100688, they literally used the optimization in gaming to make optimized programming and optimized drone racing outside of the scope of the original chess and go games.

>not for a mammal
see
>>16100761
>There are also mammals that practice r selection instead of K selection, fish aren't the only r selecting species, but this has nothing to do with your original argument and doesn't prove that it isn't a contradiction to say trial and error is not a way to do things without being taught.
Mice and rabbits both are examples of mammals that produce a lot of offspring, most of which tend to fail.

>>16100770
No, it also involves remembering which things were dumb and which things succeeded then improving success over time by knowing the dumb things to avoid and trying different variations of succeeding strategies to find which ones succeed at greater rates or with greater returns.

>>16100779
>>16100779
>no knowledge results that could be applied elsewhere, even in similar problems.
*This is the sentence I was referring to as absolutely wrong.

>>16100743
>the ability to live forever if one chooses to.
Nature itself would revolt, disease, Potato Famine, you God would become...well...Me.

By consent or conquest, it shall be done.

You WILL interact with Reality.

You will NEVER have a choice.

First time playing "Life Games"?

Shall we play a Game?

Dont worry...first time's free, baybeee.

>>16100779
>No understanding would be involved in the process of doing things without being taught either,
What do you mean? Of course it would. How would you determine what to do with no understanding? It almost seems like to deny that intelligence can exist.
>It doesn't memorize being taught anything,
It memorizes the resulting method.
>it develops and optimal method through trial and error.
It develops a method that works, not an optimal one.
>Mice and rabbits
Have nowhere near the thousands of offspring needed to survive through trial and error.
>>16100781
In actual trial and error it doesn't.

>>16100779
>No understanding would be involved in the process of doing things without being taught either,
What do you mean? Of course it would. How would you determine what to do with no understanding? It almost seems like you're trying to deny that intelligence can exist.
>It doesn't memorize being taught anything,
It memorizes the resulting method.
>it develops and optimal method through trial and error.
It develops a method that works, not an optimal one.
>Mice and rabbits
Have nowhere near the thousands of offspring needed to survive through trial and error.
>>16100781
In actual trial and error it doesn't.

>>16100840
>How would you determine what to do with no understanding?
Trial and error, just do something and see how it works out.

>It memorizes the resulting method.
It developed the method, it wasn't taught something to memorize, it remembers which of its methods are most successful and continually tries to optimize further through trial and error.

>It develops a method that works, not an optimal one.
No, it always tries to go for a higher score on the next trial and is always optimizing and using whatever strategies work best and you still just admitted that it develops it strategies rather than memorizing strategies it was taught.

>Have nowhere near the thousands of offspring needed to survive through trial and error.
The fuck are you talking about? They have survived for millions of generations and being an r selected species with a higher mortality rate their offspring are obviously by definition more trial and error based than human K selected offspring.

>In actual trial and error it doesn't.
It does because if you know the errors to avoid because you have already gone through the trials, you are more likely to avoid those errors you have knowledge of and so are the computer algorithms.

>>16100841
>almost seems like you're trying to deny that intelligence can exist.
No, I am clearly just denying that >>16099313 is an accurate definition of intelligence while also pointing out that most definitions of intelligence, especially that one, are conformed to by machine intelligence and even lower stupid animal intelligence has a higher standard than doing things without being taught.

>>16100845
>Trial and error, just do something and see how it works out.
Not intelligence.
>>16100845
>it remembers which of its methods are most successful and continually tries to optimize further through trial and error.
>you still just admitted that it develops it strategies rather than memorizing strategies it was taught.
What I mean is that there is no understanding in remembering what worked by the trial and error.
>The fuck are you talking about? They have survived for millions of generations
Mammals are intelligent beyond trial and error.
>It does because if you know the errors to avoid because you have already gone through the trials, you are more likely to avoid those errors you have knowledge of
That's still trial and error and not intelligent, you only remember what dudn't work.

>>16100858
>Not intelligence.
Then you need a new definition of intelligence because trial and error is definitely a way to do things you haven't been taught and knowledge is definitely gained through trial and error since the scientific method is one big trial and error loop.

>What I mean is that there is no understanding in remembering what worked by the trial and error.
Yes there is, you clearly have no idea what trial and error means since it specifically means doing things and keeping track of what succeeds and what fails since trial and error is specifically a form of fine tuning and obtaining knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_error

>Mammals are intelligent beyond trial and error.
Trial and error is definitely a main component of mammalian reproduction and evolution in general.

>That's still trial and error and not intelligent
Trial and error completely conforms with the definition of intelligence we are working with, if you want to introduce some new definition that would disregard trial and error as a way to obtain knowledge, then you can try, but your attempt will be just as stupid and provably wrong as trying to definite intelligence as >>16099313 doing things you are not taught.

inteligence is just a silly human word with no single consistent definition

>>16100862
>because trial and error is definitely a way to do things you haven't been taught
It's a dumb way, as you essentially do random things with no understanding.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_error
See the section "Features". It agrees with me.
>Trial and error completely conforms with the definition of intelligence we are working with,
Not really, it doesn't.
>disregard trial and error as a way to obtain knowledge
Trial and error results in no knowledge beyond a method that works. That's what you get from it.

>>16100870
Trial and error is specifically when you gain understanding by figuring out on your own through successive trials which things are dumb errors to be avoided and which things succeed.

> It agrees with me.
No it doesn't, it describes several ways in which knowledge is obtained via trial and error which can be used to find multiple solutions, all solutions, and best solutions instead of just one solution.

>Not really, it doesn't.
Yes it really does since to use trial and error you don't have be told what to do, you just start doing things and only repeat the most successful actions.

>Trial and error results in no knowledge beyond a method that works.
The article specifically calls it a way to obtain knowledge, even in the "Features" section and you not only use it to gain knowledge of methods that work, you also figure out which methods don't.

>>16098870
Ability to perform the three Rs
Reading
Reckoning
Rhetoric

note, reckoning can involve mathematic computation or reasoning or problem solving in general, but can also mean orienteering, and rhetoric can often involve large amounts of memorization

>>16100922
Reading can involve learning but it's more about understanding what is grammatically correct and being literate, sometimes in your own language, sometimes in other languages, and that could even include the language of math the language of science or even computer languages

>>16100922
>Reckoning
>Rhetoric
Sir, you can only R(h)eckon a Rhetoric., be serious in your Trivium.

>>16100928
Wrong.

>>16100935
Fair enough

>>16100873
Knowing what works and what doesn't isn't "understanding".

All mammals go beyond trial and error, and little to no "instinct": for example a hanging rat grasps back when it starts slipping. The rat knows what it's doing - a rat with the mammal brain removed will not think of grasping back, it isn't a reflex. Virtually all mammal behavior is conscious act, rats won't even think of breeding instinctually.

>>16100958
Not the same anon, but trial and error are major steps towards understanding. Understanding doesn't happen until you can pin down the behaviour. That's the way the brain works, it gets trained.
If we never observed anything, we would never have any sort of rigourous theory to show for it. That's why the greeks called their scientists natural philosophers. Knowledge and understanding doesn't just happen.
Heck, after 300 years of pinning down the law of gravitation, we still don't have an accepted understanding of why it happens, and yet we use it to great effect in physics and engineering.

>>16100958
>All mammals go beyond trial and error
Then mammalian intelligence goes beyond doing things you haven't been taught and that is a horrible definition of intelligence as I have been claiming all along.

>>16100965
>That's the way the brain works, it gets trained.
No. It just isn't.
>>16100967
You know, maybe you're a schizo who can't understand anything?

>>16100580
So which is it? Is it a true statement or not? How do you assess whether or not its true?

>>16100983
No, I definitely understand why your definition of intelligence is stupid, you are the one having trouble understanding why or knowing what trial and error means.

>>16101002
>No, I definitely understand why your definition of intelligence is stupid
It doesn't seem like you understand what intelligence is.

>>16100169
A computer will combine all objects in a set to form the permutation set. Is a computer creative?

>>16100989
I said according to logic, things are either true or not true. Your statement is "I am thinking of number 7", therefore your statement is either true or false.
>>16101486
If AI can create a new idea then yes it's creative, otherwise how else would you define creativity and how it's related to intelligence? Intelligence is defined as the ability to do something, such as the ability to learn, understand, memorize, engage in logical thinking, reason, abstraction and creativity.

>>16102013
>according to logic, things are either true or not true
That's a false statement
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic

>>16102013
That's not AI, that's just a basic set operation that was mentioned

>>16099337
Your definition is stupid and you're stupid for defending it.

>>16099391
>The capacity and quality to solve a problem. Sinple as.
A roof has these. Nobody claims they have intelligence, you idiot.

>>16102080
No it's better than other definitions, as it specifically excludes "I trained this for 10000 hours, so now I'm smart." / "dumb people think, smart people study" etc. kinds of supposed "intelligence"

>>16101069
No, you are just confused because your working definition of intelligence has obviously been demonstrated to be incredibly stupid.

>>16102041
>That's a false statement
Which according to you means that it can also be true.

>>16102778
-->>>16102737

>>16102836
A bad definition isn't correct just because its better than a terrible definition.

>>16102867
It isn't a bad definition, you're just mad it doesn't cover your "book smarts" / "crystallized" pseudo-intelligence.

>>16103041
It is a bad definition, reasons have been provide whether you ignore them or not, it is not a book smart definition nor any other kind of smart, it is a stupid definition of intelligence and you are stupid for defending it using retarded fallacies and projection based name calling.

>>16102085
So the intelligence goes to the one who designed the roof, not the roof itself, u fucking retard.

>>16099429

>You can only solve problems once you gain an understanding on what to do with the available tools you've acquired.

As I said, understanding is just a piece. But you can't solve the problem just understanding what's happening.

>>16102783
No, it's false and you're just wrong. You're showing that you don't even understand what the other side is saying further showing your stupidity

>>16103124
Yes but you are arguing that some things can be both true and false because its accurate to say things are either true or not true, so proving something is not doesn't actually prove it can't also be true.

>>16103130
In practice you can't know the truth with any certainty, so limiting yourself to binary logic results in nonsensical deductions.

>>16103151
Except you still haven't taken that to heart since you are still obviously trying to prove what you say is true and what I say is false instead of accepting that everything is maybe.

>>16098870
I don't need to define it to know what it is. Now that's intelligence.

>>16098870
Intelligence is not exclusive to human beings, but reason is.

>>16098870
I am gonna say that I don't know what intelligence IS.
However I do know what intelligence is NOT - Arguing over what intelligence is on a mongolian basket weaving forum.
And after I am done crossing over everything intelligence is not then whatever remains, no matter how improbable must be what it actually is.

>>16102041
>That's a false statement
You just proved my point