>What statements like this fail to consider What makes you think he failed to consider this? Or that this and the entire crux of your statement isn't inherent

>What statements like this fail to consider What makes you think he failed to consider this? Or that this and the entire crux of your statement isn't inherent in his criticism? >it cannot be only under such anthropocentric terms. It needs to be able to solve a multitude of real-world problems with approaches that humans might never be able to readily comprehend Isn't that point, that being "at least" at the level of human terms of intelligence is orders of magnitude more advanced and efficient than anything currently available or on the horizon? The "human way" isn't even close to possible and yet you're saying AGI needs to be greater?