> Wait a minute, do people have to be able to solve those problems to be considered intelligent in the AGI sense? My guess is there's about 8B people who wouldn

> Wait a minute, do people have to be able to solve those problems to be considered intelligent in the AGI sense? My guess is there's about 8B people who wouldn't pass that bar. Maybe 75+% of the "8B people" actually COULD "pass that bar" -- they just need to be a good high school and college math major. That's my judgment after teaching quite a lot of college math, at Indiana University and Ohio State University. Sooo, my guess here, for an effort at some insight into current AI and progress toward AGI, is that commonly humans can read, study, understand, and work exercises in math and "pass that bar" and current AI can read, ..., that math but won't be able to go far enough to "pass that bar". > Anyway what exactly is the bar for intelligence? For an answer, and for AGI we are assuming the context of human intelligence, it would be good but for now too difficult to come up with necessary and sufficient conditions. But a necessary condition would be for the AI to be able to do what humans do or, as you suggest, commonly could do with some study. So, I picked some work with some relatively clear ways to tell, pure math, that commonly humans can do, and we can tell they can do, with some study, and I'm guessing current AI cannot. So, if this is correct, then the current AI fails a necessary condition. Then we have the question, is doing well at the math also a sufficient condition? I haven't been trying to address that question!!! Or, maybe at some time in the past commonly people would have guessed, expected, claimed, some such, that playing a really good game of chess would be a sufficient condition! But now I'd expect that fewer people would so guess!!