> To me, a general intelligence is one that is not just specific
Which is why a calculator is a great example.
> A calculator is a very specific, very inflexible, type of intelligence, so it's not, by definition, general
Depends what kind of calculator and what you mean. I think they are far more flexible than you give them credit for.
> I'm in hardware engineering, so maybe I have a different perspective, but goals based on outcome are the only ones that actually matter, especially if nobody has done it before.
Well if we're going to talk about theoretical things, why dismiss the people who do theory? There's a lot of misunderstandings when it comes to the people that create the foundations everyone is standing on.
> And, I'm not talking about the indirect applications of a calculator or a specific intelligence.
This was an attempt to prevent this exact chain of response.
I calculator can only be used indirectly to solve a practical problem. A more general intelligence is required to know a calculator is needed, and how to break down the problem in a way that a calculator can be used effectively.
For example, you can't solve any real world problem with a calculator, beyond holding some papers down, or maybe keeping a door open. But, an engineer (or other general intelligence) with a calculator can solve real world problems with it. Tools vs tool users. The user is the general bit, not the specific tool that's useless on its own!
I think we've reached the limits of communication. Cheers!
I can definitely write programs to solve real world problems. I think you're just so set on your answer that you're not recognizing the flexibility that exists. Your argument isn't so different from all the ones I hear that argue that science is useless and that it's engineers who do everything. It has the exact same form and smell albeit with different words. But as generalists we understand abstraction, right?
yes you, a general intelligence, write a specific expert for a specific problem.
> If you want to argue that we don't need the concept of AGI, because something like specific experts could be enough to drastically change the economy, then sure! That would be true. But I think that's a slightly different, complimentary, conversation. Even then, say we have all these experts, then a system to intelligently dispatch problems to them...maybe that's a specific implementation of AGI that would work.
was to prevent this comment chain.
I think we'll have to give up at this point, with whatever smells you may be attempting to communicate with me. Cheers!
