3 ms·
> It seems that even if someone creates a model that can "solve" ARC, it still is not indicative of AGI since it is not "general" anymore I recently explained
by mrandish 2y ago
> It seems that even if someone creates a model that can "solve" ARC, it still is not indicative of AGI since it is not "general" anymore
I recently explained why I like ARC to a non-technical friend this way: "When an AI solves ARC it won't be proof of AGI. It's the opposite. As long as ARC remains unsolved I'm confident we're not even close to AGI."
For the sake of being provocative, I'd even argue that ARC remaining unsolved is a sign we're not yet making meaningful progress in the right direction. AGI is the top of Everest. ARC is base camp.
- iwsk 2y agoin other words, solving ARC is necessary but not sufficient for AGI
- mrandish 2y agoYes! That's the exact phrase I would have used with someone on HN. But that doesn't describe my non-technical friend. :-)
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y agoWhy is it necessary? Could a spider solve ARC-AGI, or could a pigeon, or a cat? And if an animal doesn't need to solve ARC-AGI to be intelligent, then why does an AGI?