is it terrible? Otherwise I’ll watch it

are they paying the performers for schedule? it’s a very strange quote and outcome otherwise

I'm reorienting my career toward analyzing "safety critical systems" away from writing safety critical software, because I think the skills that make for good safety-critical products are actively selected _against_ in the software industry...

strictly speaking, i'm claiming that next-symbol prediction is an aspect of intelligence: do you contest that point?

but also you post like an AI

I do not like this discourse.

I do not like find out that I'm posting with a group of people who all have had my *fucked up* lived experience

yes

a PI controller, is in my opinion, the definition of a (marginally) intelligent system - it has a set point (a goal), a plan that it can change (two error signals), a feedback element (sense) and the ability to actuate (execute)

what is a computer but many control loops?

How do they always do this?

How does the Navy always choose to fail on the easy shit?

Humans have spent their lives pondering that question. I like Socrates, The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.

As a person who also had the same experience: it's definitely Harry Styles doing a David Bowie.

It also helps that Sandra Huller's cover is better than Styles' original version.

this one has a photo of a person doing the bad thing

for some reason many people are incapable of blaming systems, only people

is this different from the powered JSOW variant that was floated several years ago?

what is your definition of wisdom?

The ability to a device to query embedded representational knowledge isn't intelligence?

this has an objective ('retrieve a record' aka predict a token!) and a plan ('construct a query') and means to execute the plan ('a database of knowledge')

and I do recognize that the court of public opinion would firmly be in @gentlemanengineer.bsky.social's favor

I am specifically trying to get people to define intelligence, not the mechanisms of intelligence

for the record here: my answer to this question is a clear: yes

yes

the existence of assemblage a series of mechanical gears to achieve the goal (computation) makes the device intelligent

because

Mike + calculator is more intelligent than mike w/o a calculator, it then follows that the calculator clearly possesses some level of intelligence

if it does something useful for you, is that not sufficient?

in what sense are you doing the work of the multiplication?

the whole point of machines is that they do things for you!

and yes I would argue that a model T car possesses non-zero intelligence

why is a sense of self required for intelligence?

also is empirical reality really required for a test of intelligence?

taken seriously this means that there is no synthetic way of testing intelligence

yes - it's just several orders of magnitude less intelligent than a human

but e.g. a cat/dog is clearly pretty damn smart,

there's also the classic national parks bit: "the gap in intelligence between the dumbest tourist and the smartest bear is roughly zero"

but you're not actually doing the algorithm! you don't need to carry the digits!

its a question of degrees of intelligence, hence the use of the phrase "metric", not a classification

yes, clearly

Hey look we did a Sicario, which you might be familiar from the critically acclaimed movie "[Don't do a] Sicario"

(SICARIO dir: Denis Villenueve is streaming on netflix)

people over platforms? in the us military?

what are you, some sort of commie?

This is why "dumb as a rock" is the idiom, not "dumb as an [ant/mouse/etc]"

But I'll entertain the tooling question as well:

One poster says that animals aren't intelligent, despite the ability to do basic shape matching. I disagree - its just a limited form of intelligence.

Also, in robotics, this was an open challenge for literal decades!

Interesting replies in this thread along two themes, both of which are about flaws in my original post

1. Intelligence is undefined: I define it as the ability to sense, make and execute plans to achieve a goal.

2. OP was about a _metric_ of intelligence, not tools.

Any alternate definitions?

As a follow-up (serious question: are calculators intelligent?

I say yes: they can make and execute a plan (7 + 420*69) to achieve a goal (produce correct number token)