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.
Conversation
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.
2
1
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
And if one wishes to be specific about general, noting that humans aren't that general then it would be vs say, 100 humans.
2
1
One could further argue that a human in general because of their interaction with 100 other humans.
1
2
Right, without being embedded within such interactions, humans wouldn't be so capable but, full capabilities wouldn't be located in any one human, they'd be distributed.
1
1
Furthermore, one can say the same for anything biological. Its full capabilities are always within the context of what it's embedded in.
1
2
So the general intelligence is not for one human but for a group of humans or all humans ?
To say that human intelligence is general is to interpret the world from a human perspective.
We have this illusion perhaps because we are the dominant species on earth.
The day when there is a species (AI) more dominant than us, which will discover problems that we can't even imagine, then the GI will change its definition.
1