My naive interpretation is that both of these situations involve assigning "intelligence" to a machine or system built by a human w/o said human's continued intervention.
I'm thinking about the systems, not the rules within the systems. If the "official" philosophy line is that it's all about those rules, well maybe that's why official philosophy is so damn confusing.
I just finished reading "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins, let me recommend that as a really well written and lucid explanation of the meaning of intelligence. If Numenta can build systems that can replicate what a 2 year old can do given a 2 year old's memory and sensory capabilities, I'll be ready to say that Jeff's explanation wins, and that philosophers better find something else that's impossible to prove or disprove (like the existence of God) to go argue about.
I'm thinking about the systems, not the rules within the systems. If the "official" philosophy line is that it's all about those rules, well maybe that's why official philosophy is so damn confusing.
I just finished reading "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins, let me recommend that as a really well written and lucid explanation of the meaning of intelligence. If Numenta can build systems that can replicate what a 2 year old can do given a 2 year old's memory and sensory capabilities, I'll be ready to say that Jeff's explanation wins, and that philosophers better find something else that's impossible to prove or disprove (like the existence of God) to go argue about.