I believe GP is being sarcastic, as this seems to be a common reaction. Every time a machine accomplishes something that seems to be intelligent, we redefine intelligence to exclude that thing, and now the issue is fixed: computers are not intelligent and they cannot think.
Never mind that they can beat the entire world at chess and Go, and 90+% of the population at math, engineering, and physics problems. Those things do not require intelligence or thinking.
Comments
No problem. Just redefine "thinking".
To what? And how does that change the reality of what the models are doing?
I believe GP is being sarcastic, as this seems to be a common reaction. Every time a machine accomplishes something that seems to be intelligent, we redefine intelligence to exclude that thing, and now the issue is fixed: computers are not intelligent and they cannot think.
Never mind that they can beat the entire world at chess and Go, and 90+% of the population at math, engineering, and physics problems. Those things do not require intelligence or thinking.