Once ARC-AGI-3 is solved (including on the private set), would we be convinced that we have achieved AGI?

If not, is the benchmark just incorrectly named? (I personally think so.)

PS: I follow Wikipedia's definition for AGI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...), which also talks about some tests. However, I distinguish it from Strong AI.

▲

wise_blood 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Once ARC-AGI-3 is solved (including on the private set), would we be convinced that we have achieved AGI?

no? once 3 is solved, we would come up with 4. then 5, 6...

it will be AGI when we cannot come up with a task easy for human but hard for machines. thet's the whole point.

	▲	alok-g 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That makes sense. Thanks for answering. The approach feels asymmetric though now, since by the time AI reaches a point where humans cannot come up with any task that's easy for humans but hard for machines, it (AI) may be able to do some tasks that an average human can't, or do some much better than an average human.

▲

kelseyfrog a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> would we be convinced that we have achieved AGI?

No.

AGI is impossible without a biological pineal gland. The pineal gland is the seat of consciousness and without one, any AI is merely a pattern matcher, not intelligent.

▲

alok-g a day ago | parent [-]

You seem saying:

(1) Consciousness is mandatory for intelligence.

(2) 'AGI' is no different than just 'intelligence'.

(3) Consciousness resides in pineal gland.

(4) Biology is mandatory for consciousness/AGI.

I cannot claim these to be wrong, however, have no reason to believe in any.

We do seem to agree though that the benchmark is incorrectly named.

	▲	a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	kelseyfrog a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]