AI and AGI are not synonymous terms. We’ve had AI since 1956. General intelligence means human-level intelligence. When an AI system can do any task as well as or better than humans can, it’s by definition generally intelligent.
We’re not changing the definitions. People thought that chess is so hard that once an AI system can play chess it has to be as intelligent as humans. That just turned out to be a false assumption. A system can be superhuman at playing chess but that ability doesn’t need to translate to any other field.
General intelligence means human-level intelligence.
Applicable quote from a Yosemite park ranger: “There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists.”
We’re not changing the definitions. People thought that chess is so hard… That just turned out to be a false assumption
Sounds like changing definitions to me.
A system can be superhuman at playing chess but that ability doesn’t need to translate to any other field.
AlphaZero has been superhuman at playing chess, Go, and basically any game with perfect information and fixed rules since early 2018. That’s translatable to other fields - it’s not as strong in some fields as it is in playing Go, but it’s still translatable ability…
But it’s not. It’s a hypothesis that was proven incorrect by running the experiment.
That’s translatable to other fields
I didn’t say it doesn’t ever translate to other fields. I said that it doesn’t need to. That’s the difference between narrow and general intelligence. You can be superhuman at X but have zero clue how to do Y. It’s still intelligence but it’s not general or “human level”
AI and AGI are not synonymous terms. We’ve had AI since 1956. General intelligence means human-level intelligence. When an AI system can do any task as well as or better than humans can, it’s by definition generally intelligent.
We’re not changing the definitions. People thought that chess is so hard that once an AI system can play chess it has to be as intelligent as humans. That just turned out to be a false assumption. A system can be superhuman at playing chess but that ability doesn’t need to translate to any other field.
Applicable quote from a Yosemite park ranger: “There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists.”
Sounds like changing definitions to me.
AlphaZero has been superhuman at playing chess, Go, and basically any game with perfect information and fixed rules since early 2018. That’s translatable to other fields - it’s not as strong in some fields as it is in playing Go, but it’s still translatable ability…
But it’s not. It’s a hypothesis that was proven incorrect by running the experiment.
I didn’t say it doesn’t ever translate to other fields. I said that it doesn’t need to. That’s the difference between narrow and general intelligence. You can be superhuman at X but have zero clue how to do Y. It’s still intelligence but it’s not general or “human level”