3 ms·
> human intelligence may not be that general Humans have more of an ability to generalize (ie learn and then apply abstractions) than anything else we have ava
by Reelin 6y ago
> human intelligence may not be that general
Humans have more of an ability to generalize (ie learn and then apply abstractions) than anything else we have available to compare to.
> would it be considered a human-level AI yet
Not necessarily human level, but certainly general.
Dogs don't appear to attain a human level of intelligence but they do seem to be capable of rudimentary reasoning about specific topics. Primates are able to learn a limited subset of sign language; they also seem to be capable of basic political maneuvering. Orca whales exhibit complex cultural behaviors and employ highly coordinated teamwork when hunting.
None of those examples appear (to me at least) to be anywhere near human level, but they all (to me) appear to exhibit at least some ability to generalize.
- nopinsight 6y agoFrom grandparent post: > 2) read an instruction manual for a novel game that shows up a few years from now (so it can't be replicated from the corpus), and 3) plays that game, and 4) improves at that game, that would be "general" imo. I would say that learning a new simple language, basic political maneuvering, and coordinated teamwork might be required to play games well in general, if we don't exclude any particular genre of games. Complex cultural behaviors might not be required to play most games, however. I think human intelligence is actually not very 'general' because most humans have trouble learning & understanding certain things well. Examples include general relativity and quantum mechanics and, some may argue, even college-level "elementary mathematics".