I mentioned it to have a more complete set of definitions for AGI from across the community - but do agree that it is by far the weakest and more-so a measurement of human variability and gullibility than AI intelligence.
People mention it to remind the world that the goal posts have been repeatedly moved by critics, and always will be.
A certain percentage of humans will never acknowledge that machines can be intelligent. Those people should be disqualified from the conversation for the same reason we disqualify biblical literalists from conversations about radio carbon dating.
> A certain percentage of humans will never acknowledge that machines can be intelligent.
Doesn't this assume there IS an objective, quantifiable definition of an "intelligent machine" that is agreed upon by most people? That instead sounds rather subjective to my ears.
Ignoring the irrational isn't the silencing of dissent, it's ignoring time-wasters who refuse (or are unable) to argue in good faith.
I only get so many hours on earth, I'd rather not spend them debating what the definition of "is" is with someone who would rather litigate tautological nonsense than accept *any* level of evidence as sufficient.
I mentioned it to have a more complete set of definitions for AGI from across the community - but do agree that it is by far the weakest and more-so a measurement of human variability and gullibility than AI intelligence.