I get what you mean by feel vs emotions now. Though it's of personal opinion how that's necessary to characterize something as being intelligent.

One can easily argue that wisdom is a consequence of acquiring experience. It's part of the decision making or 'instructions' as you put it. So in this sense, wisdom should be captured within experience in this context.

I don't have tech intensity. I don't believe tech will solve all, or believe in AI stuff like self-driving will be imminently achievable. I just understand why they give artificial intelligence that moniker - it learns its own instructions, instead of a human explicitly coding it., which is quite justifiable.

Tell me then. That's the difference between experience and wisdom? What's the difference between feelings and emotions that's actually relevant in this discussion?

I'm not a tech zealot at all. I simply understand why they call it artificial intelligence', and it's quite justifiable as a monkier.

Edit: I love how you just call anyone who disagrees with you a tech zealot. And haven't made any substantive argument or demonstrated any in-field knowledge, but the latter would make one a tech zealot right?

>No point in arguing over semantics

Then proceeds to do exactly that.

It's called artificial intelligence because nobody coded those instructions. The model learned those on its own to exposure and experience just like living things. This is a huge departure from humans explicitly writing the instructions.

>human experience, wisdom, feel and emotion are essential to intelligence

Experience and wisdom are one and the same. So are feel and emotions. So your definition of intelligence boils down to experience and emotions.

Experience is exactly what these things use to learn.

Emotions. The AI models can learn to recognize those and output in consequence if that is their purpose. If you're talking about them feeling emotions on their own, then your defining intelligence as sentience, which AI totally has the potential to achieve.