We simply dont actually know what intelligence is.
We do. It's cognitive ability.
Nominally, it's the ability to interpret and solve problems.
It also comes with a level of self-awareness and the ability to utilise logic rather than instinct.
That we know what intelligence is, is how we are able to classify various animals as intelligent; Dolphins, Octopodes, Corvids, Elephants, Chimpanzees etc.
They stand out because of their use of logic to interpret and solve problems. Using a higher level of thought than the pure instinct of other animals. With Chimps notably being in their own Stone Age with them regularly creating and utilising stone tools to assist them with tasks.
Thus we cannot create an artificial version of it.
Our inability to create an artificial version of it stems from our lack of knowledge on the exact processes behind it. Notably, we don't fully understand how a brain works, nor can we recreate one. As such, we cannot reproduce the result.
We have only been able to create rudimentary facsimiles of "Learning" by way of "Reinforcement" which is reliant entirely on applying a reaction to specific actions as opposed to any actual understanding of what is occurring.
With the most obvious example being MLMs whereby you just get a program to run thousands of iterations and any one that doesn't perform as desired is deleted and ones that do perform as desired are kept for future iterations until you get a copy that has randomly acted in a way that you wanted without any knowledge of why or how.
What we would want is create artificially the genius of our actual grand thinkers. Like, say, Albert Einstein.
At the base level, we don't necessarily need genius AI.
All we need is something that is capable of thought, deduction and adaptation.
Like, if we take current usages of "AI", we have things like ChatGPT whereby you'd want an intelligence that is able to take a question you ask it and then respond to it using its own logic - Such as searching online for credible sources of information, or providing an actual opinion based on accrued knowledge.
GenAI would want an intelligence that is able to understand prompts and then actually
create something based on it (Not just mash together existing media, but actually make something brand new)
Automatons would want an intelligence that is capable of adapting to change, providing the intended outcome despite variable inputs (I.e. Being able to do QA in production settings)
Of course, one of the dreams that mankind has had for yonks is robot companions, which require enough capacity for thought and learning to be able to have a unique personality and be able to express this.
Genius AI is only a small sample of what we could use (And has its inherent flaws in that it can outpace our own ability to understand rendering it either obsolete or causing us to rely too heavily on it and become complacent and regress our own capacity for intelligence)
There is something fundamentally different about living beings compared to machines, and I doubt any increase in computing power will ever overcome this. A machine is simply not a being.
I mean, theoretically, we could create machines that feel pain.
Pain is a relatively simple process that is based on sensory input being interpreted and resulting in the feeling of distress.
Emotional pain is more complex due to it being based around chemical reactions influencing cognitive pathways (The latter being not fully understood).
The whole thing about "Artificial Intelligence" is that when actually achieved, there would be little difference between machine and organism besides the structure of their body.
Literally, "Artificial Intelligence" is such a misnomer because if we create it, like truly actually create an actual intelligence then it wouldn't be "Artificial" it would simply be intelligence.
