Comment by infinite_spin
5 hours ago
That's an interesting take, and I can see how "computer" could refer to a human a hundred years ago, but they also mentioned "status quo", which should indicate that a reasonable person should use a modern definition.
Imagine you're the first one to invent a digital electronic computer. You call it a computer, and I go on Tinkerer News and post (by carrier pigeon) "ummm akshully computers are people????" - which one of us would be adding value and which one subtracting it?
Again I’m not the person who wrote the comment, but I think they were exaggerating for effect and maybe lost the audience in doing so. While “computer” has meant the same thing for many decades now, the term “intelligence” really does seem like a moving goalpost?
Several decades ago, "computer" was a moving goalpost due to the invention of the electronic computer, and then the digital computer.
yet those movements came with clear definitions. If you have a new definition for intelligence, which isn't just designed as a definitional dodge, then please provide one
I think it's only a moving goalpost if you can show that the goalpost has moved with a new definition that fits our current usage of it. The people saying "this isn't intelligence", and then claim "we don't even know what intelligence is", are encouraged to offer such a definition.