> Those are distillations of existing knowledge.

Definitions are "formal statements of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/definition)

> They are necessarily behind the status quo.

The existing state or condition would be what is written in the dictionary, not whatever personal definitions you've constructed.

> "You can't call this newfangled contraption a computer, because a computer is a person!"

Seems like a straw man. A computer is not a mammal, no matter how much you twist a set of definitions.

▲

quicklime 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

> A computer is not a mammal, no matter how much you twist a set of definitions.

I’m not the person you replied to, but I believe they’re referring to the occupation of “computer”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)

So yes, at one time all computers were mammals.

The people who write dictionaries generally take a descriptivist approach, that’s why slang terms enter the dictionary after they start to become popular.

The state of the art of human knowledge would be another step ahead of the common use of any language.

▲

infinite_spin 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

That's an interesting take, and I can see how "computer" could refer to a human a hundred years ago, but they also mentioned "status quo", which should indicate that a reasonable person should use a modern definition.

	▲	quicklime 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Again I’m not the person who wrote the comment, but I think they were exaggerating for effect and maybe lost the audience in doing so. While “computer” has meant the same thing for many decades now, the term “intelligence” really does seem like a moving goalpost?