|
|
|
|
|
|
by rhn_mk1
1094 days ago
|
|
|
> Here's a testable definition of AGI - any combination of software and hardware that can function independently of human supervision and maintenance, in response to circumstance that have not been preprogrammed. Not sure how I feel about a significant portion of the population already not meeting that threshold. The elderly? The disabled? I think you're proving the parent's point. |
|
|
Anyone? How did the saying go? The minimum viable unit of reproduction for homo sapiens is a village.
None of us passes the bar, if the test excludes "supervision and maintenance" by other people - and not just our peers, but our parents, and their parents, and their parents, ... all the way back until we reach some self-sufficient-ish animal life form. That's, AFAIR, way below primates on evolutionary scale.
But that test is bad also for other reasons, including but not limited to:
- It is confusing intelligence with survival. Survival is not intelligence, it is a highly likely[0] consequence of it[1].
- It underplays the non-random aspect of it. Phrased like GP phrased it, a rock can pass this test. The power of intelligence isn't in passively enduring novel circumstances - it's in actively navigating the world to get more of what you want. Including changing the world itself.
--
[0] - A process optimizing for just about any goal will find its own survival to be beneficial towards achieving that goal.
[1] - If you extend it from human-like intelligence to general optimization, then all life is an example of this: survival is a consequence of natural selection - the most basic form of optimization, that arises when you get a self-replicating something that replicates with some variability into similar self-replicating somethings, and when that variability affects survival.