[CuriouslyC]

Intelligence clearly isn't a one-off/recent thing, since we observe remarkably intelligent behavior from cephalopods, which are vastly distant in the tree of life and not recent from an evolutionary perspective. We also know intelligence is also clearly not a binary attribute from many animal and human studies.

The fact that we don't know how higher-order intelligence works in general is exactly why it will be emergent rather than designed.

You shouldn't worry so much about consensus, but instead use your senses and your brain to make up your own mind. That is the approach that gave us the enlightenment.

[orthoganol]

Ok but I am talking about general human intelligence when I say AGI and 'recently emerged', not mollusks. You could easily argue we will find out how higher-order intelligence emerged one day, as some researchers already have models for that if you've read a college anthropology textbook; may not be right, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that it emerged recently due to new structure(s) ('design') coming about in a relatively short time period, so making the claim "Since we don't know how it happened, therefore it must be like X" is flawed.

You know what French Enlightenment thinkers were also against? Making headstrong claims (as an authority) without empirical evidence on your side :)

[CuriouslyC]

I think "what humans are" is not a useful definition of intelligence. Not only is it not useful, but it's likely to lead us down a blind alley in intelligent systems research. Kind of like if we assumed when trying to build a flying machine that the only way it could work is if it flapped its wings.

Human intelligence definitely did not arise "in one day" and any anthropologist positing such a theory hasn't looked at the last 30 years of research in statistical genetics. Intelligence is an incredibly complex trait resulting from the interaction of many, many genes.