> This is also not a good model, because what we usually mean by intelligence are reasoning capabilities, not e.g. motor skills.
Yes, the model is not good, I agree. But your understanding of intelligence incorrectly. You think that intelligence is a rate of learning. Or in neuroscience terms, brain plasticity. So, first, plasticity is largest at birth and gradually decreases as brain matures. This means that newborn would be "more intelligent" than 50yo man. Secondly, a fast rate of learning is not necessarily a good thing. If you ever worked with neural networks, you'd know that when training it, you can adjust at what rate the weights in artificial neurons would change. If you make fast rate, for one, network quickly overlearns, meaning he becomes too specialized and adjusted to exact cases he experienced, and secondly, it can quickly "forget" what he has learned. Slow learning rate makes it longer to learn, but also is more "stubborn" and doesn't give of on old beliefs so easily either.
On the other hand, as you said, knowledge also does not mean intelligence. If it cannot learn from it's mistakes, it is surely not intelligent. So I'd say intelligence is a combination of experience and plasticity.
> Saying "machine more intelligent than human" is just a shortcut for saying "machine that is able to reason about the world faster, better, with less biases than human; which will manipulate mental concepts and prove theorems out of reach for humans, as well as invent better technology, tackle human social problems better than humans do, etc. etd.".
So in the other words machine becoming more proficient in some very specific skill or multiple skills. Yes, that is common sense.
It's not that I disagree with the core idea of singularity, I just find it pointless and unnecessary. Some might say "it brings attention to the field", but I'm not really sure it helps AI research, since it attracts the wrong kind of people that would make actual research.
Yes, the model is not good, I agree. But your understanding of intelligence incorrectly. You think that intelligence is a rate of learning. Or in neuroscience terms, brain plasticity. So, first, plasticity is largest at birth and gradually decreases as brain matures. This means that newborn would be "more intelligent" than 50yo man. Secondly, a fast rate of learning is not necessarily a good thing. If you ever worked with neural networks, you'd know that when training it, you can adjust at what rate the weights in artificial neurons would change. If you make fast rate, for one, network quickly overlearns, meaning he becomes too specialized and adjusted to exact cases he experienced, and secondly, it can quickly "forget" what he has learned. Slow learning rate makes it longer to learn, but also is more "stubborn" and doesn't give of on old beliefs so easily either.
On the other hand, as you said, knowledge also does not mean intelligence. If it cannot learn from it's mistakes, it is surely not intelligent. So I'd say intelligence is a combination of experience and plasticity.
> Saying "machine more intelligent than human" is just a shortcut for saying "machine that is able to reason about the world faster, better, with less biases than human; which will manipulate mental concepts and prove theorems out of reach for humans, as well as invent better technology, tackle human social problems better than humans do, etc. etd.".
So in the other words machine becoming more proficient in some very specific skill or multiple skills. Yes, that is common sense.
It's not that I disagree with the core idea of singularity, I just find it pointless and unnecessary. Some might say "it brings attention to the field", but I'm not really sure it helps AI research, since it attracts the wrong kind of people that would make actual research.