6 ms·

> It is entirely not necessary for an AGI to be able to drive a car. "Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the hypothetical[1] ability of an intelligent ag

by croon 5y ago

> It is entirely not necessary for an AGI to be able to drive a car. "Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the hypothetical[1] ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can." What definition are you using?

tinco 5y ago
The same, that they understand and can learn how to drive a car doesn't mean they would actually be able to do it in the real world. You can read a book on how to hit a ball with a baseball bat, you can even practice and get good at it, but that still doesn't mean you would actually be able to hit a ball thrown by a professional pitcher.
- croon 5y ago
  The interface to the car is a solved problem. > You can read a book on how to hit a ball with a baseball bat, you can even practice and get good at it, but that still doesn't mean you would actually be able to hit a ball thrown by a professional pitcher. If I hade incredibly fast reflexes and actuators I could.
  - tinco 5y ago
    Similarly, DeepMind's software might be able to drive a car, would it have a similar neuron count, connectivity, perception systems and training you received. Or maybe it couldn't, because the software is not as efficient as the organisation of your brain is. Or because there's hardcoded routines evolved in your brain that it lacks. What I'm saying is that just that because an AGI can't drive a car, it doesn't mean it's an AGI. For the same reason there's loads of people out there that are generally intelligent that can't drive cars for all sorts of physical reasons.
    - croon 5y ago
      > Similarly, DeepMind's software might be able to drive a car, would it have a similar neuron count, connectivity, perception systems and training you received. Admittedly I'm a layman in this area, but could it? AFAICT it would only work on trained set data and whatever generalizations can be made on that and not infer unseen scenarios like humans do readily. > What I'm saying is that just that because an AGI can't drive a car, it doesn't mean it's an AGI. I understood what you meant from your first post, I'm simply disagreeing on account of the very definition of AGI. You can't have an ameoba level AGI and still call it (a limited) AGI. Either it can understand/learn any human task, or it can't. The definition is made for a reason. Watering it down for any specific generation of AI serves no benefit.

by croon 5y ago

tinco 5y ago

The same, that they understand and can learn how to drive a car doesn't mean they would actually be able to do it in the real world. You can read a book on how to hit a ball with a baseball bat, you can even practice and get good at it, but that still doesn't mean you would actually be able to hit a ball thrown by a professional pitcher.

croon 5y ago
The interface to the car is a solved problem. > You can read a book on how to hit a ball with a baseball bat, you can even practice and get good at it, but that still doesn't mean you would actually be able to hit a ball thrown by a professional pitcher. If I hade incredibly fast reflexes and actuators I could.
- tinco 5y ago
  Similarly, DeepMind's software might be able to drive a car, would it have a similar neuron count, connectivity, perception systems and training you received. Or maybe it couldn't, because the software is not as efficient as the organisation of your brain is. Or because there's hardcoded routines evolved in your brain that it lacks. What I'm saying is that just that because an AGI can't drive a car, it doesn't mean it's an AGI. For the same reason there's loads of people out there that are generally intelligent that can't drive cars for all sorts of physical reasons.
  - croon 5y ago
    > Similarly, DeepMind's software might be able to drive a car, would it have a similar neuron count, connectivity, perception systems and training you received. Admittedly I'm a layman in this area, but could it? AFAICT it would only work on trained set data and whatever generalizations can be made on that and not infer unseen scenarios like humans do readily. > What I'm saying is that just that because an AGI can't drive a car, it doesn't mean it's an AGI. I understood what you meant from your first post, I'm simply disagreeing on account of the very definition of AGI. You can't have an ameoba level AGI and still call it (a limited) AGI. Either it can understand/learn any human task, or it can't. The definition is made for a reason. Watering it down for any specific generation of AI serves no benefit.