That seems like a personal definition for super intelligence. I don't think I'm alone in assuming super intelligence needs to be greater than all humans for it to be considered super vs "pretty good intelligence".
> > I think "being able to do as well as a 50th percentile human who's had a little practice," on a wide range of tasks, is a pretty decent measure.
> That seems like a personal definition for super intelligence.
I was giving a definition for artificial general intelligence as distinguished from super-intelligence, since the poster above said that most definitions of AGI were indistinguishable from super-intelligence.
To me, a computer doing as well as a practiced human at a wide swath of things is AGI. It's artificial; it's intelligence, and it's at least somewhat general.
> That seems like a personal definition for super intelligence.
I was giving a definition for artificial general intelligence as distinguished from super-intelligence, since the poster above said that most definitions of AGI were indistinguishable from super-intelligence.
To me, a computer doing as well as a practiced human at a wide swath of things is AGI. It's artificial; it's intelligence, and it's at least somewhat general.