2 ms·
This conclusion was sealed when they settled on the definition of AGI as being "as good or better than humans at things humans do", emphasis mine. Things humans
by andrewflnr 4y ago
This conclusion was sealed when they settled on the definition of AGI as being "as good or better than humans at things humans do", emphasis mine. Things humans do require embodiment.
The more interesting proposition (that I'm inclined to believe FWIW) is that "common sense" requires high-bandwidth interaction with an environment, complex inputs and outputs. The environment could be Reality, it could be a simulation, or it could be something totally other. In either case, the abilities the agent develops will make sense in that environment. If that's true, and if "human level common sense" is close enough to AGI by OP's definition (that's pretty close to what we mean in practice IMO), then OP is basically the special case of this argument where the environment is the real world.
- Enginerrrd 4y agoI think the problem with this assertion is that how do you differentiate between specialization and the "G" for general in AGI. ... in many ways, wouldn't a tree meet your definition of AGI? (Perhaps it should?) Like, at a sufficiently granular level, I probably couldn't "tree" very well, even with the assistance of tremendous computing power. There's vast amounts of computation being performed during a tree doing its thing. But is a tree really a general intelligence?
- andrewflnr 4y agoI don't think a tree would, I don't think it acts on and reacts to its environment in the way we're looking for. A squirrel probably would, though, and honestly I think that's ok, since we still have no idea how to make something that navigates its world (and steals birdseed) with the efficiency of a squirrel.