>Citation needed. That's a lazy critique. With a lack of concrete evidence either way, we can only rely on the best explanation (theory). What's your explanati

>Citation needed. That's a lazy critique. With a lack of concrete evidence either way, we can only rely on the best explanation (theory). What's your explanation for how an AGI is just an ant with more compute? I've given my explanation for why it's not: an AGI would need to have the ability to create new explanatory knowledge (i.e. not just synthesize something that it's been trained to do). As an example, you can currently tell almost any person (but certainly no other animal or current AI) "break into this room without destroying anything and steal the most valuable object in it". Go ahead and try that with a faster ant. On your tutoring example, just because a given person doesn't use their special capabilities doesn't mean they don't have them. Your example could just as easily be interpreted to mean that tutors just haven't figured out how to tutor effectively. As a counter example, would you say your phone doesn't have the ability to run an app which is not installed on it? >Current AI has approaches for all these. But has it solved them? Or is there an explanation as to why it hasn't solved them yet? What new knowledge has AI created? I know as a member of a ML research group you really want current approaches to be the solution to AGI. We are making progress I admit. But until we can explain how general intelligence works, we will not be able to program it.