> 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.

> 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.