9 ms·
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.
by 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.