My point (using irony) is that "spiky intelligence" is a somewhat hollow phrase, something that sounds like it could be objective but really it's just a flavor on top of "I'll know it when I see it."

Take anything "intelligent", alter it to be spikier and spikier, and eventually *poof* somehow the intelligence vanishes. You can do the same with the phrases "flawed intelligence" or "specialized intelligence."

> Calculators [have] no intelligence. [...] I mean there's no adaptability

To short-circuit a long discussion, I submit that "adaptability" will (once the Scooby Doo gang catches it) turn out to be "intelligence" in a tautological mask, both equally undefinable except in relation to one-another.

Something will be intelligent because you perceive adaptability, and it'll be adaptable because you infer intelligence. If it doesn't seem adaptable, it can't be intelligent, and if you don't want it to be intelligent, it won't have "real" adaptability.

> A Chess bot has [adaptability] (in its narrow domain of Chess). A calculator does not.

My calculator solves equations with unknown variables, what makes that insufficiently adaptable? What determines the cutoff-point?

Thermostats are smarter than calculators :thinking_face:

They adapt to the buttons you press. Thus, intelligent and capable of feeling pain.