It's frustrating to read this type of response whenever this topic is raised. It does nothing but derail the conversation into absurdism.

Yes, we don't have clear definitions of intelligence, just like we don't for life, and many other fundamental concepts. And yet it's possible to discuss these topics within specific contexts based on a generally and colloquially shared definition. As long as we're willing to talk about this in good faith with the intention to arrive at some interesting conclusions, and not try to "win" an argument.

So, given this, it is safe to assert that we haven't invented artificial intelligence. We have invented something that mimics it very well, which will be useful to us in many domains, but calling this intelligence is a marketing tactic promoted by people who have something to gain from that narrative.

> It does nothing but derail the conversation into absurdism.

The conversation (about whether AI is “intelligent”) was already absurd, I’m just pointing it out ;)

The more important conversation is about whether AI is useful, dangerous, and/or worth it. If AI is competent enough at a task to replace a human for 1/10 the cost, it doesn’t really matter if it “has a mortal soul” or “responds to sensory stimuli” or “can modify its weights in real time”, we need to be talking about what that job loss means for society.

That’s my main frustration: that the “is it intelligent” debate devolves into pointless unsettleable philosophical questions and sucks up all the oxygen, and the actual things of consequence go undiscussed.

I am doing this, because normally Hinton is my go-to for cautious, useful input to a debate. When he makes this kind of sweeping statement, my hackles get up. The rest of the article had nothing I didn't expect. I did NOT expect him to make such a sweeping assertion.

They're useful. They're not intelligent. He invited the reproach.