Is this shocking? We don't have a rigorous definition of intelligence so doesn't it make sense? The question isn't about such a goal post moving so much about how it is moving. It is perfectly acceptable for it to be refined while it wouldn't be to rewrite the definition in a way that isn't similar to the previous one.
So I think there are a lot more than your two possibilities. I mean psychologists and neuroscientists have been saying for decades that tests aren't a precise way to measure knowledge or intelligence, but that it is still a useful proxy.
> "quacks like a duck" behavioral
I see this phrase used weirdly frequently. The duck test is
| If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it ***probably*** is a duck.
I emphasize probably because the duck test doesn't allow you to distinguish a duck from a highly sophisticated animatronic. It's a good test, don't get me wrong, but that "probably" is a pretty important distinction.
I think if we all want to be honest, the reality is "we don't know". There's arguments to be made in both directions and with varying definitions of intelligence with different nuances involved. I think these arguments are fine as they make us refine our definitions but I think they can also turn to be entirely dismissive and that doesn't help us refine and get closer to the truth. We all are going to have opinions on this stuff but frankly, the confidence of our opinions needs to be proportional to the amount of time and effort spent studying the topic. I mean the lack of a formal definition means nuances dominate the topic. Even if things are simple once you understand them that doesn't mean they aren't wildly complex before that. I mean I used to think Calculus was confusing and now I don't. Same process but not on an individual scale.
> I emphasize probably because the duck test doesn't allow you to distinguish a duck from a highly sophisticated animatronic. It's a good test, don't get me wrong, but that "probably" is a pretty important distinction.
Why is it an important distinction? The relevance of the duck test is that if you can't tell a duck from a non-duck, then the non-duck is sufficiently duck-like for the difference to not matter.
Do believe there's a important distinction between a duck and not a duck?
I'm assuming you do, since apples aren't oranges and ducks aren't robots no matter what conspiracy theorists joke or say. You can't eat an animatronic duck. It doesn't lay eggs, no matter how much another duck tries to mate with it.
> then the non-duck is sufficiently duck-like for the difference to not matter.
Here's where things fall apart. This is not actually true. It is about your measurements, not about the actual duck-iness of the thing we're applying the duck test to. I know this sounds funny, but let's just say we're using only sight and sound. Does my duck get destroyed when flying through a magnetic field? A biological duck won't but an animatronic duck will. Now let's say your blind (you can't see magnetic fields), can something pass the duck test for you but it will obviously not be a duck for someone who can see? This is obviously true[0]. I'm sure we can find a bird that you'd think is a duck but isn't.
So it matters, do you care if something is a duck or not? And in what way? There's no single duck measurement, there's a whole suite of tests that need to be combined carefully and thoughtfully depending on how you answer the previous questions.
Obviously this is extra important when we aren't exactly sure what a duck is...
So I think there are a lot more than your two possibilities. I mean psychologists and neuroscientists have been saying for decades that tests aren't a precise way to measure knowledge or intelligence, but that it is still a useful proxy.
I see this phrase used weirdly frequently. The duck test is I emphasize probably because the duck test doesn't allow you to distinguish a duck from a highly sophisticated animatronic. It's a good test, don't get me wrong, but that "probably" is a pretty important distinction.I think if we all want to be honest, the reality is "we don't know". There's arguments to be made in both directions and with varying definitions of intelligence with different nuances involved. I think these arguments are fine as they make us refine our definitions but I think they can also turn to be entirely dismissive and that doesn't help us refine and get closer to the truth. We all are going to have opinions on this stuff but frankly, the confidence of our opinions needs to be proportional to the amount of time and effort spent studying the topic. I mean the lack of a formal definition means nuances dominate the topic. Even if things are simple once you understand them that doesn't mean they aren't wildly complex before that. I mean I used to think Calculus was confusing and now I don't. Same process but not on an individual scale.