3 ms·
Sure, if you define AGI as needing to be able to perform all physical tasks that a physically median-or-better adult human could perform, maybe it needs to be e
by romanows 4y ago
Sure, if you define AGI as needing to be able to perform all physical tasks that a physically median-or-better adult human could perform, maybe it needs to be embodied essentially by definition. I don't think the physical aspect is implied by "artificial" or "intelligence", and I would argue not by "general" either seeing as how it's modifying "intelligence".
Also, think about humans who cannot accomplish physical tasks of this standard. Babies, elderly, disabled, malnourished, and maybe people who are just really lazy or defiant.
I stopped reading at this point so sorry if the essay returns to this point and addresses it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- erikpukinskis 4y agoOK, so the AGI doesn't need to be intelligent about anything physical... What does that leave? What is it intelligent about? > think about humans who cannot accomplish physical tasks of this standard. Babies Babies aren't intelligent, and without bodies they can never become intelligent. A baby who is fully paralyzed (disembodied) can't even learn to see or hear let alone operate intelligently in the world.
- romanows 4y agoA non-embodied AGI could know and reason about physical stuff. Non-physical intelligence abounds, no? This conversation we're having here is not in the physical world. You're right that babies aren't up to what my standard for AGI would be either, that's a bad example, good catch.