undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnearbuy1mo ago0 comments

> 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.

0 comments

tadfisher1mo 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.

nearbuyOP1mo 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.

fc417fc8021mo 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.

nearbuyOP1mo 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.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

tadfisher1mo ago

nearbuyOP1mo ago

It has nothing to do with circular reasoning or my personal opinions.

fc417fc8021mo ago

Defining it that way doesn't exclude ordinary people. That's an erroneous claim on your part.

nearbuyOP1mo ago

First, what is your definition exactly? That it must be better than the median human intelligence?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse