[ReadEvalPost]

Certainly we can say our ML models are becoming more general in the sense of being able to cross-correlate between multiple domains. This is quite a different story than "becoming a general intelligence." Intelligence is a property of a being with will. These models, and machines in general, do not posses will. It is we who define their form, their dataset, their loss function, etc. There is no self-generation that marks an intelligent being because there is no self there at all.

It is only the case that ML expands our own abilities, augments our own intelligence.

[dekhn]

Assumption of will is unfounded, scientifically speaking. Your entire argument is philosophical, not scientific. The subjective experience of free will is in no way unrefutable proof that will is required for intelligence.

[svieira]

Since a working (in the sense of 'working title') ontology and epistemology are _required_ for science (read "natural philosophy") is this argument not arguing that "the argument for quarks is unfounded, biologically speaking"? That said, I _believe_ that both Aristotle and St. Thomas agree with you that will and intellect are not necessarily connected, so you could have an intellectual power with no freedom to choose.

[ReadEvalPost]

Do you love? Do you dance? Do you desire? Do you rage? Do you weep? Do you choose? Every moment of your existence you exert your will on the world.

A denial of will is a denial of humanity. I want nothing of a science that would do such a thing.

[jimbokun]

I don’t think will us inherent to the meaning of intelligence, as it’s commonly used.