upvote
> An AI that can only perform at the average human level is useless unless it can be trained for the job like humans can.

Yes, if you want skilled labour. But that's not at all what ARC-AGI attempts to test for: it's testing for general intelligence as possessed by anyone without a mental incapacity.

reply
It seems they don't test for that, since they use the second-best human solution as a baseline.

And that's the right way to go. When computers were about to become superhuman at chess, few people cared that it could beat random people for many years prior to that. They cared when Kasparov was dethroned.

Remember, the point here is marketing as well as science. And the results speak for themselves. After all, you remember Deep Blue, and not the many runners-up that tried. The only reason you remember is because it beat Kasparov.

reply
> The only reason you remember is because it beat Kasparov

There is an additional fascinating aspect to these matches, in that Kasparov obviously knew he was facing a computer, and decided to play a number of sub-optimal openings because he hoped they might confound the computer's opening book.

It's not at all clear Deep Blue would have eked out the rematch victory had Kasparov respected it as an opponent, in the way he did various human grandmasters at the time.

reply
This is supposed to test for AGI, not ASI. ARC-AGI (later labelled "1") was supposed to detect AGI with a test that is easy for humans, not top humans.
reply
> Yes, if you want skilled labour. But that's not at all what ARC-AGI attempts to test for: it's testing for general intelligence as possessed by anyone without a mental incapacity.

Humans without a clinically recognized mental disability are generally capable of some kind of skilled labor. The "general" part of intelligence is independent of, but sufficient for, any such special application.

reply
deleted
reply