[jagrsw]

That "blank slate" idea doesn't really apply to humans, either.

We are born with inherited "data" - innate behaviors, basic pattern recognition, etc. Some even claim that we're born with basic physics toolkit (things are generally solid, they move). We then build on that by being imitators, amassing new skills and methods simply by observation and performing search.

[Geee]

Sure, there's lots of inbuilt stuff like basic needs and emotions. But still, baby doesn't know anything about the world. It's the ability to collect data and train on it that makes it AGI.

[jagrsw]

> baby doesn't know anything about the world

That's wrong. It knows how to process and signal low carbohydrate levels in the blood, and it knows how to react to a perceived threat (the Moro reflex).

It knows how to follow solid objects with its eyes (when its visual system adapts) - it knows that certain visual stimuli correspond to physical systems.

Could it be that your concept of "know" is defined as common sense "produces output in English/German/etc"?

[Geee]

No, I totally agree that there's all kinds of innate knowledge, but it's very similar for humans and animals. I don't think this knowledge is intelligence. My point was that a baby is already an AGI, and it shouldn't require a lifetime of learning to become one. Also, if intelligence is just problem solving (like an IQ test) then it should be independent of knowledge.