[quirkot]

The "G" part of AGI implies it should be able to hit all the arbitrary yard sticks

[whynotminot]

That is stupid. It would be possible to be infinitely arbitrary to the point of “AGI” never being reachable by some yard sticks while still performing most viable labor.

[alterom]

>It would be possible to be infinitely arbitrary to the point of “AGI” never being reachable by some yard sticks while still performing most viable labor.

"Most viable labor" involves getting things from one place to another, and that's not even the hard part of it.

In any case, any sane definition of general AI would entail things that people can generally do.

Like driving.

>That is stupid

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

[oldestofsports]

So why are your arbitrary yard sticks more valid than someone elses?

Probable the biggest problem as others have stated is that we can’t really define intelligence more precisely than that it is something most humans have and all rocks don’t. So how could any definition for AGI be any more precise?

[onlyrealcuzzo]

Is driving is infinitely arbitrary?

It's one skill almost everyone on the planet can learn exceptionally easily - which Waymo is on pace to master, but a generalized LLM by itself is still very far from.

[mschuster91]

Humans are the benchmarks for AGI and yet a lot of people are outright dumb:

> Said one park ranger, “There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists.”

[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/security_is_a...

[pixl97]

And using humans as 'the benchmark' is risky in itself as it can leave us with blind spots on AI behavior. For example we find humans aren't as general as we expected, or the "we made the terminator and it's exterminating mankind, but it's not AGI because it doesn't have feelings" issues.