{"id":379884,"date":"2024-06-25T15:01:14","date_gmt":"2024-06-25T15:01:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/savepearlharbor.com\/?p=379884"},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"-0001-11-29T21:00:00","slug":"","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/savepearlharbor.com\/?p=379884","title":{"rendered":"What’s wrong with the term \u00abArtificial Intelligence\u00bb?<\/span>"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Recently, there has been a lot of talk about the success of artificial intelligence (AI), although this usually means another achievement in the field of generative neural networks.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

And few people, speaking about AI, try to explain what they themselves understand by the term \u201cartificial intelligence.\u201d After all, it\u2019s one thing to write about \u201cAI problems,\u201d and quite another to endow an ordinary computer algorithm with at least the rudiments of intelligence.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

After all, the etymology of the established phrase \u201cartificial intelligence\u201d is not unambiguous and can take on different meanings depending on what meaning the author is trying to put into it.<\/p>\n

<\/a> <\/p>\n

What is «intelligence»?<\/h4>\n

<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, there is no precise generally accepted concept of the term \u201cintelligence\u201d. Even the person himself (by definition, possesses intelligence) himself does not know what it is (it\u2019s like a nuclear physicist, when atoms study atoms). If we combine dozens of definitions, then the wiki will tell us that intelligence is:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

a mental quality consisting of the ability to recognize new situations, the ability to learn and remember from experience, to understand and apply abstract concepts, and to use one’s knowledge to control a person’s<\/strong> environment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Notice that there is a reference to man as the source of this very \u201cintelligence\u201d, and this seems to imply that anything that is not man is not intelligence? Then the term \u201cintelligence\u201d is clearly related to man and human activity and represents a kind of \u201cdefinition by contradiction.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

But if we take a closer look at the interpretation of the term \u201cintelligence\u201d and pay attention to the fact that the application of abstract concepts and the use of one\u2019s knowledge to manage the environment<\/em> is aimed not only at changes for the sake of changing, but to change for the sake of achieving a goal<\/strong>, then the meaning the term \u201cintelligence\u201d begins to play with completely different colors!<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

If there is a goal and there is a will to achieve it, then \u201cintelligence\u201d is not just the ability<\/em> to create something or creatively apply existing knowledge (a stupid computer can do this after receiving the appropriate command), intelligence, it is one\u2019s own desire<\/strong> do something to find a goal, achieve it, and this is inherent only in a living being<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

And it seems to me that this interpretation of the term intelligence (not only the ability to solve creative problems), but also the presence of one\u2019s own intention<\/em> to set these tasks for oneself is more correct and puts everything in its place. Otherwise, Homo sapiens would turn into ordinary ants, driven by external will (instinct or commands).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Therefore, it is not enough to have the opportunity<\/em> to do something, you must first have your own desire to do this \u201csomething\u201d. In other words, the term intelligence<\/em> is associated not only and not so much with creative abilities, but with the motivation to use these opportunities and use them independently.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

What is «artificial»?<\/h4>\n

<\/p>\n

With the term \u201cartificial\u201d everything is much simpler. \u201cArtificial\u201d is something made not<\/strong> by nature (i.e. not in a natural way), but with the help of intelligent activity. But should the definition of \u201cintelligent activity of a person<\/strong>\u201d be clarified? Typically, the definition of the term \u201cartificial\u201d contains a similar reference:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n