I think we previously assumed that AGI would need to come before superintelligence, but it kind of seems like that's wrong? Super intelligence in a narrow field has arguably already arrived (solving problems that were previously unsolved), but we are still pretty far behind human abilities in things like spatial reasoning or computer use.
replyIt’s artificial, it’s general, and it’s intelligence. The people who believe “AGI” is an important and unattained goal need to start coining and defining their terms better.
replyA true AGI will continuously improve itself without periodic retraining from scratch. Just like humans.
replyThat’s just an assertion. Why is that the “true” definition?
replyIt depends on your definition. For me it would have to be able to do the stuff humans can do like make a cup of coffee (Wozniak test).
replyJust maths isn't really general enough for the G in AGI.
It can give you detailed instructions for making a coffee. Is that not enough? Actually making coffee requires more than intelligence, it requires eyes and limbs (i.e., robotics). Think about a human that is blind and does not have limbs. Does he not have natural general intelligence, even though he is not able to make a cup of coffee?
replyThe Wozniak test has it with a robot body going into a house, finding a coffee maker and making a cup. I guess you can vary the rules as you like.
replyThat's a good test for a robot, not for AGI. AGI should test only intelligence and should not require limbs.
replyOkay we can make a completely digital environment for it to make coffee in then. It would still fail unless you let it randomly try every combination potentially thousands of times until it stumbles upon the right path. It doesn't take intelligence to read off a recipe, it does take intelligence to read a recipe, understand it, adapt it to your specific tools and materials on hand which may differ from the recipe, and then actually still accomplish it in the first or maybe second try.
reply