{"id":13262,"date":"2023-09-21T16:28:22","date_gmt":"2023-09-21T16:28:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=13262"},"modified":"2023-09-26T12:27:46","modified_gmt":"2023-09-26T12:27:46","slug":"what-is-intelligence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/artifical-intelligence\/what-is-intelligence","title":{"rendered":"What is Intelligence?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What exactly is intelligence when not restricting it to the human case? Or, better asked \u2013 since intelligence is what we call so \u2013 how can we characterize something as \u2018intelligence\u2019 in a generally recognizable way?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In human (and animal, pre-human) evolution, intelligence has appeared in specific circumstances \u2015 making human intelligence inextricably emotional and social. Thus, in \u2018About \u2018Intelligence<\/a>,\u2019 I put intelligence within a progression between information and consciousness as worked out in The Journey Towards Compassionate A.I.<\/a>  Now, we can denote somewhat more precisely what it generally means.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Two intelligences?: comprehension vs. competence<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two examples of competence (can-do) without self-comprehension (can-explain) are natural evolution and a pocket calculator. Both have done incredible stuff that may well seem pretty intelligent but don\u2019t ask them how they did it. Especially don\u2019t ask them to point to something internally that we would recognize as conceptual reasoning except at the lowest level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is logical to confine intelligence to conceptual comprehension. A merely competent system may not by itself comprehend why it does something. For instance, humans generally have significantly less comprehension of their motivations than they think \u2015 concerning themselves and others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, a merely competent system may act as if it\u2019s self-comprehending. If it continually does so, in a way, it implicitly comprehends. One way or another, the information is actively present inside the system. With present-day LLM systems, we have good examples of this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brute force?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Competence without comprehension makes one think of brute force processing. This may make competence look intelligent from the outside,<\/em> even without comprehension on the inside<\/em>. Thus, when going deeper, brute force is generally not enough for something to be seen as \u2018intelligent\u2019 by most people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question is then not whether or not the system is intelligent but whether or not we call it so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the end, people naturally want to see some \u2018magic\u2019 in intelligence.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maybe that\u2019s because we like to see ourselves as the intelligent pinnacle of evolution? But isn\u2019t that just a lack of humility?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, when we understand something conceptually\/mechanically, we don\u2019t see it as intelligent (anymore). The magic has gone \u2015 only brute force remains as in a computer check master beating any human champion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conceptualization at least can bring competence to a different level and broaden it through conceptually analogical thinking. It brings a new level of active information integration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the move<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Intelligence is not static, nor only reactive. It is active either continuously or at least regularly self-initiated. Something that is only reactive is a mechanism that can be called \u2018intelligent\u2019 for commercial purposes, but not genuinely. True intelligence is \u2013 one way or another \u2013 self-driven \u2014 thus, \u2018active.\u2019 In short, true intelligence is active integrated information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be intelligent, it doesn\u2019t matter what exactly drives the activity as long as it comes from the inside out. So:<\/p>\n\n\n\n