Naval (@naval) on Airchat
It's actually surprisingly difficult to define. Alan Turing proposed the Turing test, which turns out, I think, to be somewhat incorrect. It basically says if it can fool you into thinking it's a human, then it's good enough. The problem is the definition of you. So usually people who come back breathless saying we've invented AGI have just failed the Turing test from the other side themselves. So really an AGI, like a human, would be capable of unbounded creativity. It would be a universal explainer. So what is creativity? Very hard to define. It is the growth of new knowledge that has not yet been discovered. So an AGI would have to make substantial contributions to new knowledge through creative solutions, not just through exhaustively exploring the search space, but actually coming up with new problems and solving them. That's my closest thing to a definition, but it's not a great one.
