3 ms·

> The "G" in AGI stands for "General", which a dog obviously can't showcase. That isn't obvious to me at all. If you don't like the dog analogy, lets try anoth

• imiric 1y ago
  Hhmm good point. I would say... yes. But with the strong caveat that when used within the context of AGI, the individual/system should be able to showcase that intelligence, and the results should be comparable to those of a neurotypical adult human. Both a dog and a toddler can show signs of intelligence when compared to individuals of their similar nature, but not to an adult human, which is the criteria for AGI. This is why I don't think that a system that underperforms the average neurotypical adult human in "most" cognitive tasks would constitute AGI. It could certainly be considered a step in that direction, but not strictly AGI. But again, I don't think that a strict definition of AGI is helpful or necessary. The impact of a system with such capabilities would be impossible to deny, so a clear definition doesn't really matter.
  • menaerus 1y ago
    > I don't think that a system that underperforms the average neurotypical adult human in "most" cognitive tasks would constitute AGI What makes you say that it underperforms? I ask because evidence strongly suggests that it is actually vice-versa - AI models currently outperform humans in most of the tasks.