If you see “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog” 80,000 times - and enough other sentences involving all those words to see how they generally fit together - then the system KNOWS what jumped over the lazy dog. It “knows” that it was none other than the quick brown fox.
Any system that models things (saves the relations) in a way that makes it easier and easier to output a prediction about it each time is developing “knowledge” of it, is “learning” about it, and if it can reliably articulate abstract truths about it, is “intelligent” in that particular way.
When I say somebody knows C better than anyone else, I mean they can reliably articulate all the right things in the right order - they “know” it, they have intelligence, they’ve modeled it enough to make their own reproductions, whether partial or derivative and so-on.
Being consciously aware of it might be an entirely separate system.
uncanny2•7h ago
Intelligence is the mitigation of uncertainty, if it isn’t mitigating uncertainty it is not intelligent.
All intelligence is “trained” at some level, even “genetic” or “compositional” intelligence is “trained.” Your understanding of what that is and how it works is lacking.
Training takes time and may be conflated or inaccurate or inadequate, yet “training” (iterative preparation, usually with synthesized samples or circumstances) is necessary.
You remind me of a friend who once said he tried working out but stopped after he (inexperienced) worked out real hard and then hurt for two weeks. Working out didn’t work for him. Is training not working for you?
If you haven’t noticed, “IQ” testing has to be updated from time to time as the “average” creeps upward. 100 is supposed to always be the average, this is adjusted over generations as whatever qualities these sample are rising over time.