[fc417fc802]

How am I getting caught up on it? I acknowledged that I think frontier models qualify as intelligent but disputed the "general" part. In fact for quite a few years now there have been many non-frontier models that I also consider intelligent within a very narrow domain.

I think stockfish reasonably qualifies as superhuman AI but not even remotely "general". Similarly alphafold.

> Actually solving it is not a requirement for AGI.

I think I see what you're trying to get at but taken as worded that can't possibly be right. Otherwise a dumb-as-a-brick automaton that made an "attempt" to tackle whatever you put in front of it would qualify as AGI.

[charcircuit]

>Otherwise a dumb-as-a-brick automaton that made an "attempt" to tackle whatever you put in front of it would qualify as AGI.

I would agree as long as there is a general mechanism to represent problems. It is AGI, but would perform poorly on benchmarks compared to better AGI.