"Ordinary intelligence. If you find a way to make Wikipedia solve intelligence tests or let Wikipedia reason, plan, solve problems independently we can talk about this."
You mean HUMAN intelligence? As long as you define intelligence as necessarily human, all AI successes will be seen as failures (by definition).
If in the "system" of human and wiki interaction, intelligence can be shown to manifest in ways that are not attributable to the intelligence of the human alone; would this satisfy your definition and open a way to consider mine as well?
If an otherwise intelligent human were physically handicapped such that he couldn't "solve intelligence tests independently" (couldn't use paper and pencil, for example) ... by your definition, he would not be intelligent.
"Wikipedia does not have to do anything with AI."
This is your official position? My position is that it does. You have discounted my position by your preferences and have closed all avenues for further communication. -- Brett Robertson Metaphysician Mindrec.org ICQ 6630756