[meroes]

As a layman, is this just saying we learn by training an intuition of what's what/what's correct, rather than actually calculating deep reality/referencing our entire memory set every time we intake some information or need to solve a task problem? Meaning, we develop tons of rules/heuristics after repeated pattern exposures, and use the simplified rules rather than a deep theory or 'brute-forcing' every possibility until we find one that's right. For example with chess, we don't know at the deepest possible level why this move might be best, it just feels right due to a massive learned intuition.

If that's the case, then to me it seems like AGI is limited by the amount and type of data a NN can be fed. To have an intelligence like homo sapiens, wouldnt you expect that no matter the underlying NN, it has to take in a comparable amount of data to what the 5+ human senses take in over lifetime, plus the actual internal 'learning' (i.e pattern recognition, heuristics, and intuition) + some kind of meta awareness (consciousness) to speed up and aid this process + dedicated pieces of the brain such as Broca's/Wernicke's

[TheOtherHobbes]

AI is a confused soup of more or less (un)related concepts: agency, sentience, pattern recognition, unsupervised learning, embodiment, NLP, and goal selection - among others.

IMO the minimal useful definition of AGI would list a set of testable skills that would qualify as AGI, and a more useful definition would be based on quantifiable skill sets that would allow numerical comparisons between humans and AIs.

It seems pointless to speculate when AGI might be a reality when we have only the fuzziest idea what AGI is supposed to look like.