Why? What is the value of removing a distinction that might just give you a handle on avoiding the most dangerous class of intelligences? If you’re making it a requirement of intelligence to not focus on a small number of goals, you are thereby insisting that a paper-clip maximizer is not intelligent. Yet, by most definitions, it certainly is intelligent. Redefining intelligence is not a helpful way to go about solving the problem.
Why? What is the value of removing a distinction that might just give you a handle on avoiding the most dangerous class of intelligences?
If an “intelligence” focuses on short term goals to the detriment of long term goals, then that would appear to be not very intelligent at all.
But this is arguing over semantics, so I’m going to stop here. I suppose you can define words any way you like, but I question the utility of those definitions. I suppose I’ll have to wait to see what you’re drawing the distinction for.
For the purposes of an AI, I would just call this intelligence.
Why? What is the value of removing a distinction that might just give you a handle on avoiding the most dangerous class of intelligences? If you’re making it a requirement of intelligence to not focus on a small number of goals, you are thereby insisting that a paper-clip maximizer is not intelligent. Yet, by most definitions, it certainly is intelligent. Redefining intelligence is not a helpful way to go about solving the problem.
If an “intelligence” focuses on short term goals to the detriment of long term goals, then that would appear to be not very intelligent at all.
But this is arguing over semantics, so I’m going to stop here. I suppose you can define words any way you like, but I question the utility of those definitions. I suppose I’ll have to wait to see what you’re drawing the distinction for.