| Such a fantastic paper overall, it was a pleasure to read, it's very accessible, and greatly informative. If anyone is new to the idea and is seeking a definition of AGI, reading this paper is easy and is immeasurably superior to merely googling or reading the wikipedia article. My only criticism for the article within the particular set of goals outlined above is this: The paper seems to be under-exploring two aspects that appear to be worth exploring explicitly and in detail: 1. Ability to rapidly learn from a very limited amount of instructory data post-deployment and substantially advance in its abilities in the domain of the learning post-deployment, as opposed to possessing certain level of professional skills immediately on-deployment. 2. Ability to invent entirely new ideas, like for instance inventing an entirely new system of numbers or another symbolic or other system on its own, all to advance its current goals. Both in part to distinguish an AGI from a large collection of glued together Narrow AIs, each purpose-built for a specific, but entire domain of fairly loosely related tasks, and in part to ensure that a high level AGI system always appears at least as intelligent as an average human teenager across the full spectrum of all possible cognitive and metacognitive interactions with the said teenager (be those interactions initiated by another human or by the cognitive projection of the environment). Without these abilities, there could be a system - it could be argued, I believe - that would technically (or at least arguably) satisfy the definition of an ASI level of AGI as per the paper that an average human child / teenager may appear more intelligent in comparison to, exceeding the said system in plasticity and real-time limited-input adaptability of the intellect rather than off-the-shelf proficiency in trained adult human tasks: a high level AGI system might be initially trained on trillions of tokens of input data, but once deployed, it needs to be able to acquire new skills and proficiencies from mere tens-to-thousands of input examples - such that humans do. Perhaps the framework presented by the paper intended to silently encompass these abilities and the remarks above, but surely they deserved a separate discussion, such as other aspects of the definitions and the framework proposed by the paper are indeed explicitly discussed. Similarly, not including "autonomy" into the "six principles" (making them seven) for composing a definition of an AGI and only discussing it briefly and on a side also appears to be a questionable choice for the same reasons. |