There are an infinite number of algorithms to compute A from Q, given a se tof (Q, A). Almost none, surely, are intelligent.
These proxy measure of intelligence are just arguments from ignorance, "I don't know how the machine computed A from Q, therefore...".
But of course some of us do know how the machine did it; we can quite easily describe the algorithm. It just turns out no one wants to because its really dumb.
Esp. if the alg is, as in all ML, "start with billions/trillions of data points in the (Q, A) space; generate a compressed representation ZipQA; and for novel Q' find decompressed A located close to Q similar to Q'"
There are no theories of intelligence which would label that intelligence.
And let me say, most such "theories" are ad-hoc PR that are rigged to make whatever the latest gizmo "intelligent".
Any plausible theory begins form the initial intuition, "intelligence is what you do when you dont know what you're doing".
These proxy measure of intelligence are just arguments from ignorance, "I don't know how the machine computed A from Q, therefore...".
But of course some of us do know how the machine did it; we can quite easily describe the algorithm. It just turns out no one wants to because its really dumb.
Esp. if the alg is, as in all ML, "start with billions/trillions of data points in the (Q, A) space; generate a compressed representation ZipQA; and for novel Q' find decompressed A located close to Q similar to Q'"
There are no theories of intelligence which would label that intelligence.
And let me say, most such "theories" are ad-hoc PR that are rigged to make whatever the latest gizmo "intelligent".
Any plausible theory begins form the initial intuition, "intelligence is what you do when you dont know what you're doing".