> So I think AGI is fine unless you’re explicitly trying to mimic human intelligence. Humans we will only recognize AGI when it can simulate all our flaws. We

> So I think AGI is fine unless you’re explicitly trying to mimic human intelligence. Humans we will only recognize AGI when it can simulate all our flaws. We won't think the computer is able to see properly until it can observe the same optical illusions that we do (which are visual system flaws). By general we mean being able to completely relate to *our* experience. We are very biased even when it comes to say math, focusing on certain aspects and representations, which if are easily digestible for our brain, thus must be sign of intelligence. Huge numbers calculations - not intelligence, we cannot do that. Doing 100 problems way better than we do but doing mistake in 1 that is obvious to us - clearly not intelligence. If it doesn't have the same framework for survival as we created with our neurochemistry - nope, it should be able to understand it. Even though we cannot wrap our heads around an octopus feelings. Just looking at our understanding of say chimpanzees, shows how close minded we are regarding intelligence in general. So basically, I agree with all you said, I'm just very convinced that most people will not assign AGI label to anything which doesn't mimic human perception (along with all of its flaws). I mean, maybe not necessarily mimic it, but at least kind of have a virtual machine knowing what how human would perceive it. Otherwise we'll think it doesn't understand the world.