7 ms·
I was hoping the accepted definition would not use humans as a baseline, rather that humans would be an (the) example of AGI.
by math_dandy 1y ago
I was hoping the accepted definition would not use humans as a baseline, rather that humans would be an (the) example of AGI.
- bastawhiz 1y agoThe A in AGI is "artificial" which sort of precludes humans from being AGI (unless you have a very unconventional belief about the origin of humans). Since there's not really a whole lot of unique examples of general intelligence out there, humans become a pretty straightforward way to compare.
- xeonmc 1y ago> unless you have a very unconventional belief about the origin of humans No so unconventional in many cultures.
- bastawhiz 1y agoCertainly many cultures and religions believe in some flavor of intelligent design, but you could argue that if the natural world (for what we generally regard as "the natural world") is created by the same entity or entities that created humans, that doesn't make humans artificial. Ignoring the metaphysical (souls and such) I'm struggling to think of a culture that believes the origin of humans isn't shared by the world. In this case, I was thinking of unusual beliefs like aliens creating humans or humans appearing abruptly from an external source such as through panspermia.
- thomasahle 1y agoThe argument of (1) doesn't really have anything to do with humans or antromorphising. We're not even discussing AGI, we're just talking about the property of "thinking". If somebody claims "computers can't do X, hence they can't think". A valid counter argument is "humans can't do X either, but they can think." It's not important for the rebuttal that we used humans. Just that there exists entities that don't have property X, but are able to think. This shows X is not required for our definition of "thinking".