[marcosdumay]

> Are we treating an arbitrary ontological assertion as if it’s a formal argument that needs to be heroically refuted?

If you are claiming that human intelligence is not "general", you'd better put a huge disclaimer on your text. You are free to redefine words to mean whatever you want, but if you use something so different from the way the entire world uses it, the onus is on you to make it very clear.

And the alternative is you claiming human intelligence is impossible... what would make your paper wrong.

[__MatrixMan__]

I don't think that's a redefinition. "general" in common usage refers to something that spans all subtypes. For humans to be generally intelligent there would have to be no type of intelligence that they don't exhibit, that's a bold claim.

[galangalalgol]

I mean, I think it is becoming increasingly obvious humans aren't doing as much as we thought they were. So yes, this seems like an overly ambitious definition of what we would in practice call agi. Can someone eli5 the requirement this paper puts on something to be considered a gi?

[marcosdumay]

I'm not sure I got the details right, but the paper seems to define "general" as in capable of making a decision rationally following a set of values in any computable problem-space.

If I got that right, yeah, humans absolutely don't qualify. It's not much of a jump to discover it's impossible.