alt Hacker News> Miss those, and you're not maximally useful. And if it's not maximally useful, it's by definition not AGI.
I know hundreds of natural general intelligences who are not maximally useful, and dozens who are not at all useful. What justifies changing the definition of general intelligence for artificial ones?
Replies
GavCo • today at 4:58 PM
Author here, thanks for the input. Agree that this bit was clunky. I made an edit to avoid unnecessarily getting into the definition of AGI here and added a note
jwpapi • today at 3:45 PM
Yes exactly that sentence led me to step out of the article.
This sentence is wrong in many ways and doesn’t give me trust in OPs opinion nor research abilities.
At some point "general AI" stopped being the opposite of "narrow AI", that is AI specialised for a single task (e.g. speech or handwriting recognition, sentiment analysis, protein folding, etc.) and became practically synonymous with superintelligence. ChatGPT 3.5 is already a general AI based on the old definition, as it is already able to perform a variety of tasks without any specific pre-training.