quite a few definitions of intellligence are all to do with being goal-directed
Of the seventy-some definitions of intelligence that had been gathered last count, most have something to do with achieving goals. That is a very different thing from being goal-directed (which has several additional requirements, the most obvious being an explicit representation of one's goals).
The main reason most humans don't murder people to get what they want is because prison sentences confllict with their goals
Would you murder your next-door neighbor if you thought you could get away with it?
Most creatures are as goal-directed as evolution can make them
"As ... as evolution can make them" is trivially true in that our assessment of what evolution can do is driven by what it empirically has done. It remains the case that most creatures are not particularly goal-directed. We know that bees stockpile honey to survive the winter, but the bees do not know this. Even the most intelligent animals have planning horizons of minutes compared to lifespans of years to decades.
Memetic parasites are quite significant for humans - but they will probably be quite significant for intelligent machines as well
Indeed, memetic parasites are quite significant for machines today.
Of the seventy-some definitions of intelligence that had been gathered last count, most have something to do with achieving goals. That is a very different thing from being goal-directed (which has several additional requirements, the most obvious being an explicit representation of one's goals).
OK, so I am not 100% clear on the distinction you are trying to draw - but I just mean optimising, or maximising.
Would you murder your next-door neighbor if you thought you could get away with it?
Hmm - so: publicly soliciting personally identifiable expressi...
I have stopped understanding why these quotes are correct. Help!
More specifically, if you design an AI using "shallow insights" without an explicit goal-directed architecture - some program that "just happens" to make intelligent decisions that can be viewed by us as fulfilling certain goals - then it has no particular reason to stabilize its goals. Isn't that anthropomorphizing? We humans don't exhibit a lot of goal-directed behavior, but we do have a verbal concept of "goals", so the verbal phantom of "figuring out our true goals" sounds meaningful to us. But why would AIs behave the same way if they don't think verbally? It looks more likely to me that an AI that acts semi-haphazardly may well continue doing so even after amassing a lot of computing power. Or is there some more compelling argument that I'm missing?