4 ms·
What I would’ve preferred in this article which is largely long winded definitions and summaries of computing history that are much better explained on Wikipedi
by janalsncm 4y ago
What I would’ve preferred in this article which is largely long winded definitions and summaries of computing history that are much better explained on Wikipedia would be a workable, testable definition of AGI. How will we know when we’ve gotten there? Frankly, I don’t care about the Turing test. There’s several versions of it, and it’s not a general test of intelligence anyways. It’s a parlor game.
- pixl97 4y agoI don't think a single 'what is AGI' answer will satisfy everyone, someone will always have a complaint about something. I personally recommend we make a bunch of different test or 'classifications' that can be measured. Then we test each AI system against these classifications. This isn't to define if its AGI or not, but it's capabilities. For example, if a human took some of these tests they could also fail because the human body/mind is not capable. Just as an example, if we said "Flying is what birds do", then every plane would fail even though the capabilities of planes are far more useful to humans. I see this as a much better framework than the nebulous goal of 'AGI' itself.