By some metrics, intelligence is self evident. Especially in the context when you mean approximately the same thing between intelligence/conscious.
There is some intangible property I observe when I look at a human and determine they are conscious. There is some intangible property I observe when I look at a dog and determine it is conscious. There is some intangible property I observe when I look at stable diffusion and determine it is conscious.
Some attempts to explain this intangible property have been made. Almost all of the time disagreements in these explanations boil down to semantics. Yes, I consider the ability so solve problems a demonstration of intelligence. Yes, I consider to Stable Diffusion to be solving problems in this way. Also yes, I consider a hard-coded process to be behaving in a similar way.
At the end of the day we seem to define consciousness as something that makes us sufficiently sad when we hurt it.
Jobs exepted for pretty clear reasons. And yes Gmail has been dominant for quite a bit of time - especially since the period where it was possible to have your email be your digital identity.
My anecdotal usage is a combination of these two. Until I saw your provided definition I would have described chip on my shoulder to mean a sense of superiority that leads to me be rude or difficult to interact with.
I liked the writeup. I definitely see how this principle of marginal advantage extends to any competitive game that I am aware of.
Spiritually I would compare it to the concept of ruin[1] in betting games. It doesn't make sense to bet your entire stack on a single event that is anything but a certainty. A smart better must always hedge their winning odds by retaining a small portion of their funds. Similarly, marginal advantage in a game should be considered as probability edge, rather than a guarantee.
Interestingly enough, I concluded Wordle was definitely not dying when I looked at its Google trends just yesterday. A linear decrease in popularity from 100 to 50 is amazing staying power. Of course it's not going to be as popular as it's peak, but the fact that it avoided an exponential death means it's sticking around.
If someone went into basket weaving club and said "look at my basket" with something they bought from the store, everyone would be a bit annoyed, even if ultimately it doesn't matter.
Many of the comprehension questions could have been answered without reading the article. But some were quizzing irrelevant parts of the text. It's a hard balance to strike
I know we are not there yet but we will reach a point where for almost all observational purposes an AI seems intelligent. And it will be intelligent because it looks like it is. That is our judgement for intelligence. If it judgement is some magical criteria we will play a moving goalposts game and eventually actually oppress an actually intelligent system.
Humans are just really big balls of parametric functions. These AI are smaller ones. We are not special because ours is gooey.
I don't think there was any high horsing that took place or was implied. I recommend you don't leave comments such as that one you just left since it comes across as rude.
This idea was one of the things that really solidified my early learning of programming.
I made a lot of games using Scratch back in the day and I recall someone creating a tutorial on how to use recursion to draw trees. Whoever that was taught me a lot.
I felt pretty proud of myself when I scored 99 percentile on a codesignal exam. Especially since I consider many of their tests to be more legitimate than leetcode.
Some of their tests though are odd. I don't think the bugfix style is that good. But that also might be because I would just rewrite a buggy function
> You won't see Chromebooks or GSuite's Docs/Sheets used in enterprise as frequently
Right now we don't see it. GSuite will completely take Microsoft's place in corporate environments in the next 10 years. All my peers entering the workforce right now love Google docs and detest Word. It's just a matter of time for when that age bracket becomes the decision makers.
There is some intangible property I observe when I look at a human and determine they are conscious. There is some intangible property I observe when I look at a dog and determine it is conscious. There is some intangible property I observe when I look at stable diffusion and determine it is conscious.
Some attempts to explain this intangible property have been made. Almost all of the time disagreements in these explanations boil down to semantics. Yes, I consider the ability so solve problems a demonstration of intelligence. Yes, I consider to Stable Diffusion to be solving problems in this way. Also yes, I consider a hard-coded process to be behaving in a similar way.
At the end of the day we seem to define consciousness as something that makes us sufficiently sad when we hurt it.