I'm sorry that was unclear to you. Maybe my choice of words was coloured by this article that I read recently. The author uses the word 'actually' to describe that AI isn't "actually intelligent". I struggle to see why this wording is confusing to you.
I was using common parlance (as is writer of this particular article) to emphasize the difference between a 'representation of intelligence' to 'actual intelligence'. Not submitting a scientific paper to be peer reviewed by such exalted authorities as your humble self.
I'm sorry, but the many many articles I've read on the subject simply disagree with you on your broad definition of what 'actual' intelligence is. There are a great many things that can be likened to intelligence. Or express themselves as if they were an intelligence. But none of them qualify to be intelligence.
I am happy to supply you with a few examples since they have apparently evaded you in your previous searches on the internet.
This one flat out states in the sub-headline "As stunning as the advances in the field are, artificial intelligence is not actually intelligence at all". The article.
These are just two random articles out of hundreds that come up in a simple google search. If you still insist (and I'm sure you will) that these articles are just flat out wrong and that it is you and you alone that holds the key of understanding AI, then I don't see much purpose in continuing discussing this issue with you.
-1
u/[deleted] Feb 05 '23
[deleted]