4 ms·

> Not true. It's certainly true. By definition. If the bar for general intelligence is being smarter than the median human, 50% of people won't reach the thres

by nearbuy 7mo ago

> Not true. It's certainly true. By definition. If the bar for general intelligence is being smarter than the median human, 50% of people won't reach the threshold for general intelligence. (And if the bar is beating the median in every cognitive test, then a much smaller fraction of people would qualify.) People don't have a consistent definition of AGI, and the definitions have changed over the past couple years, but I think most people have settled on it meaning at least as smart as humans in every cognitive area. But that has to be compared to dumb people, not median. We don't want to say that regular people don't have general intelligence.

tadfisher 7mo ago
You are using terms like "smart" and "dumb" as if they have universally-accepted definitions. You can make up as many definitions of intelligence as you like (I would argue that is a sign of intelligence) but using those terms is certainly going to lead to circular reasoning.
- nearbuy 7mo ago
  It has nothing to do with circular reasoning or my personal opinions. You can choose to define general intelligence in a way that excludes regular people if you like, but then you'd be using a weird definition that differs from how 99.9% of people define it. Humans have general intelligence by any common definition.
  - fc417fc802 7mo ago
    Defining it that way doesn't exclude ordinary people. That's an erroneous claim on your part. Humans as a class exhibit certain capabilities. Thus we expect a class of algorithm to either roughly meet or exceed those capabilities across the board in order to be considered "general". It is clear that we have not yet achieved that.
    - nearbuy 7mo ago
      First, what is your definition exactly? That it must be better than the median human intelligence? You're trying to define a term in a way that's completely detached from how anyone uses it. If we discover an alien race with an IQ of 95, people aren't going to say they don't have general intelligence. We haven't defined an exact cutoff for what counts as general intelligence, but it has to include regular people with an IQ in the 70s that don't have a serious mental disability. If an AI can do every single cognitive task as well as a stupid person, it would have to qualify as having general intelligence if the stupid person qualified. It doesn't matter if the AI beats the median person 0% of the time, as long as it beats someone who is considered to have general intelligence at the task.
      - fc417fc802 7mo ago
        > what is your definition exactly? Approximately that an unaided agent must, with no outside assistance, be able to solve ~90% of the most difficult tasks that we throw at it with a ~90% success rate. It's not a precise definition but that's approximately where I stand on the matter. > You're trying to define a term in a way that's completely detached from how anyone uses it. I disagree and believe that it is you who is attempting to redefine it to mean something it doesn't. See this definition of AGI (link shamelessly stolen from someone else in this comment section) from before the latest AI hypecycle started warping things. https://web.archive.org/web/20150108000749/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence https://web.archive.org/web/20150108000749/https://en.wikipe... > If we discover an alien race with an IQ of 95, people aren't going to say they don't have general intelligence. Said race as a class would presumably be capable of meeting or exceeding my above criteria with appropriate exceptions made for tasks that are fundamentally incompatible with their biology of course. Your attempt to compare to individual humans is an error. AGI applies on the class level, not the individual level. Consider if a company built a humanoid robot with superhuman performance at shot put. They market it as being the equal of humans at athletics. But then it turns out that it barely plays volleyball at a novice level, with even fairly poor human opponents able to defeat it handily. That is not equal to humans as a whole at athletics even though it might potentially be the equal of any given human at any given task. Alternatively, if you could purchase the robot in different configurations and combined the full set of configurations covered every sport then the situation would be murkier.

by nearbuy 7mo ago

tadfisher 7mo ago

You are using terms like "smart" and "dumb" as if they have universally-accepted definitions. You can make up as many definitions of intelligence as you like (I would argue that is a sign of intelligence) but using those terms is certainly going to lead to circular reasoning.

nearbuy 7mo ago
It has nothing to do with circular reasoning or my personal opinions. You can choose to define general intelligence in a way that excludes regular people if you like, but then you'd be using a weird definition that differs from how 99.9% of people define it. Humans have general intelligence by any common definition.
- fc417fc802 7mo ago
  Defining it that way doesn't exclude ordinary people. That's an erroneous claim on your part. Humans as a class exhibit certain capabilities. Thus we expect a class of algorithm to either roughly meet or exceed those capabilities across the board in order to be considered "general". It is clear that we have not yet achieved that.
  - nearbuy 7mo ago
    First, what is your definition exactly? That it must be better than the median human intelligence? You're trying to define a term in a way that's completely detached from how anyone uses it. If we discover an alien race with an IQ of 95, people aren't going to say they don't have general intelligence. We haven't defined an exact cutoff for what counts as general intelligence, but it has to include regular people with an IQ in the 70s that don't have a serious mental disability. If an AI can do every single cognitive task as well as a stupid person, it would have to qualify as having general intelligence if the stupid person qualified. It doesn't matter if the AI beats the median person 0% of the time, as long as it beats someone who is considered to have general intelligence at the task.
    - fc417fc802 7mo ago
      > what is your definition exactly? Approximately that an unaided agent must, with no outside assistance, be able to solve ~90% of the most difficult tasks that we throw at it with a ~90% success rate. It's not a precise definition but that's approximately where I stand on the matter. > You're trying to define a term in a way that's completely detached from how anyone uses it. I disagree and believe that it is you who is attempting to redefine it to mean something it doesn't. See this definition of AGI (link shamelessly stolen from someone else in this comment section) from before the latest AI hypecycle started warping things. https://web.archive.org/web/20150108000749/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence https://web.archive.org/web/20150108000749/https://en.wikipe... > If we discover an alien race with an IQ of 95, people aren't going to say they don't have general intelligence. Said race as a class would presumably be capable of meeting or exceeding my above criteria with appropriate exceptions made for tasks that are fundamentally incompatible with their biology of course. Your attempt to compare to individual humans is an error. AGI applies on the class level, not the individual level. Consider if a company built a humanoid robot with superhuman performance at shot put. They market it as being the equal of humans at athletics. But then it turns out that it barely plays volleyball at a novice level, with even fairly poor human opponents able to defeat it handily. That is not equal to humans as a whole at athletics even though it might potentially be the equal of any given human at any given task. Alternatively, if you could purchase the robot in different configurations and combined the full set of configurations covered every sport then the situation would be murkier.