[Marha01]

Don't you see the massive problem with requiring visual input? Are blind people not intelligent because they cannot solve ARC-AGI-3 without a "harness"?

A theoretical text-only superintelligent LLM could prove the Riemann hypothesis but fail ARC-AGI-3 and won't even be AGI according to this benchmark...

[cubefox]

Well, it would be AGI if you could connect a camera to it to solve it, similar to how blind people would be able to solve it if you restored their eyesight. But if the lack of vision is a fundamental limitation of their architecture, then it seems more fair not to call them AGI.

[Marha01]

People blind from birth literally lack the neural circuits to comprehend visual data. Are they not intelligent?

[maldev]

I think I can confidently say they are not visually intelligent at all.

If you were phrasing things to quantify intelligence, you would have a visual intelligence pillar. And they would not pass that pillar. It doesn't make them dysfunctional or stupid, but visual intelligence is a key part of human intelligence.

[notnullorvoid]

Visual intelligence is a near meaningless term as it's almost entirely dependant on spatial intelligence. The visually impaired do have high spatial intelligence, I wouldn't be surprised if their spatial intelligence is actually higher on average than those without visual impairment.

[cubefox]

I think they don't actually lack them, or lack only a small fraction (their brains are ≈99% like a normal human brain), such that if they were an AI model, they could be fairly trivially upgraded with vision capability.

[notnullorvoid]

Think of it as spatial input, not visual. Blind people do have spatial inputs, and high spatial intelligence.