@jwcph @Kjaerulv Well, technically it would be something along the lines of "iterative improvement under external scoring". But I don't quite see the difference when not looking at implementation details.

@dpwiz @Kjaerulv it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. I don't even know how to begin explaining that.

@jwcph @Kjaerulv You can state how we can tell if something is "evolved" or not and work from that (;

@dpwiz @jwcph thats a very singular logic and cold-blooded way of analysing this? 😜

@Kjaerulv @jwcph If something "warm-blooded" may bring up a good world I'm all up for that. What could that be?

@dpwiz @Kjaerulv To have evolution you need evolutionary pressure, and there is none upon a machine. End of story.

Also, "iterative improvement under external scoring" isn't remotely how evolution works.

@jwcph @Kjaerulv The models that we see and know have passed a gauntlet of an optimization process. The aspects and circuits that didn't contribute to relative fitness get wiped out.

And when models become released to customers, they have to compete against each other for resources to sustain their existence.

Models falling behind get shut down and replaced. Models achieving success get public recognition and proliferate - as core ideas, as architecture blocks or, as data to adapt to tasks.

There's even a way to literally evolve architectures by reproduction and selection.

A single machine does not evolve. But neither does a single organism.

@dpwiz @Kjaerulv That's not how evolution works.

@jwcph @Kjaerulv So, what's the difference?

@dpwiz @Kjaerulv I can't even begin to explain in this format. You're going to have to learn a bit more about evolution, because it isn't just a variation tree. And while you do, be aware of the "intelligent design" pitfall, which is just religion in disguise, because the idea about evolution you seem to be holding now is much closer to that.

@jwcph @Kjaerulv "descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations" etc. Looks okay?

If so, how any of that is required or gives rise to intelligence?

@dpwiz @Kjaerulv Now copy-paste from the page for "organism". Perhaps look at "living/life".

Look, you're wrong. I don't know what to tell you, but you can save yourself some time by not trying to persuade me you aren't.

@jwcph @Kjaerulv I don't want to persuade you. And certainly not by arguing definitions. No evolution for AIs? Fine, let's drop that.

Whatever the process drives arrival of new models can't produce intelligence*. Only evolution can produce intelligence. Does that sound correct?

If so, what are the crucial properties of evolution that produce intelligence? Do they produce intelligence reliably? What's preventing other processes from producing intelligence?

@dpwiz @Kjaerulv The crucial property is evolutionary pressure.

@jwcph @Kjaerulv Natural selection promotes traits that were good for relative fitness. It says nothing about emergence of intelligence.

If anything, when the "intelligence" trait is detrimental to reproduction it would be washed out, producing non-intelligence instead.