It could start a new debate about the dress on twitter.

That will always happen on anything that we decide pretty much arbitrarily. Where does the color blue start and end in the electromagnetic spectrum? No one can objectively say so, but it's still useful referring to things as blue or whatever color they are.

I think there will always be a discussion on where to set the bar on what's considered intelligence, but the bar has to be set somewhere, because if anything that is alive is to be considered intelligent then there'd be no point in talking about what intelligence is. Even plants have learned through evolution to point the leaves towards the sun. Should we consider that intelligence too?

Computers are machines, merely calculators. I'd not say a calculator is smart because it can do advanced math operations faster than any human being ever could.

I wasn't talking about AI in general, only about ChatGPT. While the definition of what intelligence is can be subjective, my frustration was more about the focus ChatGPT gets on things that are beyond its capabilities, like giving correct information or doing math. That happens because people see how good it is at some very complicated things but it can't do extremely basic things.

Maybe I should have used better words to express myself, but what I meant is that people seem to expect ChatGPT to be AGI, which is not.

Thank you, I'll go through that. If I may ask, how did you get there? I only seem to get clickbait articles and videos no matter what keywords I google. Is there any kind of special "prompt" you've to google to get the results you want like with Stable Diffusion? :D

I guess there will always be room for interpretation on what intelligence is since after all is just a label we put on things. What I was thinking though was something like intelligence in animals and how that's considered intelligence without necessarily comparing animals to human beings.