undefined | Better HN

0 pointscharcircuit1mo ago0 comments

I think you are getting caught up on the intelligence part. That is the easy part since AGI doesn't have to be intelligent, it just has to be intelligence. If you look at early chess AI you will see that they are very weak compared to even a beginner human. The level of intelligence does not matter for a chess bot to be considered AI. It is that it is emulating intelligence that makes it AI.

>But is it general? I don't think so

I would consider it as general due to me being able to take any problem I can think of and the AI will make an attempt to solve it. Actually solving it is not a requirement for AGI. Being able to solve it just makes it smarter than an AGI that can't. You can trip up chess AI, but that don't stop them from being AI. So why apply that standard to AGI?

0 comments

fc417fc8021mo ago

How am I getting caught up on it? I acknowledged that I think frontier models qualify as intelligent but disputed the "general" part. In fact for quite a few years now there have been many non-frontier models that I also consider intelligent within a very narrow domain.

I think stockfish reasonably qualifies as superhuman AI but not even remotely "general". Similarly alphafold.

> Actually solving it is not a requirement for AGI.

I think I see what you're trying to get at but taken as worded that can't possibly be right. Otherwise a dumb-as-a-brick automaton that made an "attempt" to tackle whatever you put in front of it would qualify as AGI.

charcircuitOP1mo ago

>Otherwise a dumb-as-a-brick automaton that made an "attempt" to tackle whatever you put in front of it would qualify as AGI.

I would agree as long as there is a general mechanism to represent problems. It is AGI, but would perform poorly on benchmarks compared to better AGI.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse