Why does that mean AGI can’t exist? (asking genuinely, not confrontationally)
Conversation
Much of what makes us intelligent in the human niche are specialized insights into the human niche.
6
2
11
I will argue instead that AGI can only be grown in the human niche. It can't be programmed.
2
1
AGI is the persistence of a technoscientific myth of contact with the superhuman at the heart of a secular enterprise; an allegory of faith in a disenchanted universe.
1
2
Is it simply the scientific study of general intelligence by using simulation.
1
1
There is no general intelligence
1
2
What's your definition of GI? Humans are not general intelligences?
1
1
I don't think such an arbitrary definition is useful since it would lack specificity and reduce phenotypic plasticity to a set of supposedly human-exclusive measurable objectives. The boundaries of human beings are blurry. If you want to study a brittle abstraction go on with GI.
3
2
So your argument is that there's no GI because GI can't be defined? Hence your statement 'there's no GI' has no truth value. You don't know if it halts.
2
1
TLDR: GI is a panchreston.
1
1
A few decades ago you could say the same thing about biological life.
No need to go that far into the misadventures of the first taxonomists (species, a core concept of biology is not free of problems), since there are good modern arguments on the problems of categorical definitions of cognition.
1
1
A lot of definitions are human centric. When someone says Poker or Go is solved, that's a technical fiction; actual truth of it is merely negligible probability that a human wins against the machine.
Similarly, AGI would have comparable task breadth*depth ability to human
1
1
Show replies
I don't think AGI is a pluralistic concept, quite the opposite.
1