By some metrics, intelligence is self evident. Especially in the context when you mean approximately the same thing between intelligence/conscious.
There is some intangible property I observe when I look at a human and determine they are conscious. There is some intangible property I observe when I look at a dog and determine it is conscious. There is some intangible property I observe when I look at stable diffusion and determine it is conscious.
Some attempts to explain this intangible property have been made. Almost all of the time disagreements in these explanations boil down to semantics. Yes, I consider the ability so solve problems a demonstration of intelligence. Yes, I consider to Stable Diffusion to be solving problems in this way. Also yes, I consider a hard-coded process to be behaving in a similar way.
At the end of the day we seem to define consciousness as something that makes us sufficiently sad when we hurt it.
Jobs exepted for pretty clear reasons. And yes Gmail has been dominant for quite a bit of time - especially since the period where it was possible to have your email be your digital identity.
My anecdotal usage is a combination of these two. Until I saw your provided definition I would have described chip on my shoulder to mean a sense of superiority that leads to me be rude or difficult to interact with.
I liked the writeup. I definitely see how this principle of marginal advantage extends to any competitive game that I am aware of.
Spiritually I would compare it to the concept of ruin[1] in betting games. It doesn't make sense to bet your entire stack on a single event that is anything but a certainty. A smart better must always hedge their winning odds by retaining a small portion of their funds. Similarly, marginal advantage in a game should be considered as probability edge, rather than a guarantee.
Interestingly enough, I concluded Wordle was definitely not dying when I looked at its Google trends just yesterday. A linear decrease in popularity from 100 to 50 is amazing staying power. Of course it's not going to be as popular as it's peak, but the fact that it avoided an exponential death means it's sticking around.
If someone went into basket weaving club and said "look at my basket" with something they bought from the store, everyone would be a bit annoyed, even if ultimately it doesn't matter.
Many of the comprehension questions could have been answered without reading the article. But some were quizzing irrelevant parts of the text. It's a hard balance to strike
There is some intangible property I observe when I look at a human and determine they are conscious. There is some intangible property I observe when I look at a dog and determine it is conscious. There is some intangible property I observe when I look at stable diffusion and determine it is conscious.
Some attempts to explain this intangible property have been made. Almost all of the time disagreements in these explanations boil down to semantics. Yes, I consider the ability so solve problems a demonstration of intelligence. Yes, I consider to Stable Diffusion to be solving problems in this way. Also yes, I consider a hard-coded process to be behaving in a similar way.
At the end of the day we seem to define consciousness as something that makes us sufficiently sad when we hurt it.