Is it simply the scientific study of general intelligence by using simulation.
Conversation
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.
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
Emphasizing breadth * depth: elements to be integrated over. So while an AGI might not be as good at control problems related to say, internal thermoregulation, it'd make it up with some other skills.
Which kinda agrees with but without rejecting generality notion.