3 ms·
I would accept that as a proof of AI, not AGI. Provided it can do it repeatably and reliably. Hallucinating a proof that's 90% time wrong is just a parrot. For
by mordae 4y ago
I would accept that as a proof of AI, not AGI. Provided it can do it repeatably and reliably. Hallucinating a proof that's 90% time wrong is just a parrot.
For AGI, I would expect it to be teachable during the conversation. That is, to be able to form abstract models of reality and utilize them on the fly. Repeatably, reliably. Like a human with a pencil and a piece of paper can.
- benj111 4y agoIf I showed an AI a picture of a duck. They could remember that. We already have models that can be shown multiple pictures of ducks, learn what the essential characteristics of a duck are and identify novel pictures of ducks. So the AI has been taught. Has formed an abstract model of a duck and can reliably identify ducks. When does that become AGI? It can't purely be writing proofs because that's niche even for humans. Further what is intelligence? A professor of mathematics may be able to rattle off a proof. A 3 year old probably not. The 3 year old has amazing learning potential though. We accept that both the professor and the 3 year old display intelligence, but we dont seem to apply the same rules to AI.
- pmoriarty 4y agoAnother analogy is not to a child but to a part of the brain. Can a part of the human brain be intelligent? Are humans missing a part of their brain, such as through brain damage, intelligent? Such humans may not be as fully capable as humans with an uninjured brain, but (depending on the extent of the damage) we would still consider them intelligent and conscious. We may think of current AI's like that: as partially functional intelligences. But in a way they are more, because some of their functions exceed human capacity. So they are really something new: in some ways less than humans, in some ways more.