[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.