[zeroonetwothree]

I don’t see how Bongard problems are human complete if the author can’t even solve half of them. Does that mean he doesn’t have human intelligence?

I think a better candidate for human complete is “knowing what other humans are thinking”. AKA “theory of mind”.

[Viliam1234]

That would exclude many neurodivergent people. Perhaps also other cultures, and social classes.

It is easier to guess the state of minds of people who are similar to you. Because then your natural algorithm "what would I feel in such situation? what would make me say these words, act this way?" is more likely to match how they feel and think.

I suspect that many people overestimate their ability to "read other people's minds". First, they rarely verify their guesses. (I see another person and conclude that they are angry. I usually don't approach them and ask "hey, are you angry?". Therefore, if my guess was wrong, I am not going to learn it.) Second, if they turn out to be wrong, it's always the other person's fault. (If an autist cannot guess a neurotypical person's thoughts, it's the autist's fault. If a neurotypical person cannot guess an autist's thoughts, guess what, that's also the autist's fault.) Third, it is easier to guess thoughts of people we frequently talk to, because people usually think today the same thing they thought yesterday, and they already told us what they thought yesterday.

[skybrian]

Being able to solve half of them by computer would be amazing progress, indicating a breakthrough in machine learning research.

But whether that means artificial general intelligence is solved is another question. Most people can’t play Go very well either.

It’s difficult to say whether the solution will generalize without having it, but easy to imagine that it might.