On: There is a blind spot in AI research

[ChoHag]

I try to avoid making assumptions, including what your assumptions in your definitions of your two uses of the word "intelligence" were. If you used them coherently then that's wonderful but their definitions are not distinct outside your head. Their general (ie. dictionary/scientific) definitions are not absolute.

I'm an intelligent person. I know lots of intelligent people who are stupid and I know lots of stupid people who are intelligent. And I'm one of them, and I don't even know which one.

[Mz → ChoHag]

Well, that's a rather weasel-y non-answer answer, but it sounds to me like you think I am calling people "stupid" and that isn't what I am doing. I do know something about the background of intelligence testing and what not for humans. That definition of intelligence is inherently problematic.

Again: My point is that people frame things far too often from a third party point of view. This inherently causes problems in decision-making. Sometimes, humans can kind of muddle through anyway, in spite of that default standard. But AI is much less likely to muddle through anyway when coded that way.

If you (or anyone) would like to engage that point, awesome! Otherwise, I think I am done here.