There’s a distinction into “narrow AI” and “Artificial General Intelligence”.
AGI is that sci-fi AI. Whereas narrow AI is only intelligent within one task, like a pocket calculator or a robot arm or an LLM.
And as you point out, saying that you’re doing narrow AI is absolutely not interesting. So, I think, it’s fair enough that people would assume, when “AI” is used as a buzzword, it doesn’t mean the pocket calculator kind.
Not to mention that e.g. OpenAI explicitly states that they’re working towards AGI.
If I built a robot pigeon that can fly, scavenge for crumbs, sing matings calls, and approximate sex with other pigeons, is that an AGI? It can’t read or write or talk or compose music or draw or paint or do math or use the scientific method or debate philosophy. But it can do everything a pigeon can. Is it general or not? And if it’s not, what makes human intelligence general in a way that pigeon intelligence isn’t?
There’s a distinction into “narrow AI” and “Artificial General Intelligence”.
AGI is that sci-fi AI. Whereas narrow AI is only intelligent within one task, like a pocket calculator or a robot arm or an LLM.
And as you point out, saying that you’re doing narrow AI is absolutely not interesting. So, I think, it’s fair enough that people would assume, when “AI” is used as a buzzword, it doesn’t mean the pocket calculator kind.
Not to mention that e.g. OpenAI explicitly states that they’re working towards AGI.
If I built a robot pigeon that can fly, scavenge for crumbs, sing matings calls, and approximate sex with other pigeons, is that an AGI? It can’t read or write or talk or compose music or draw or paint or do math or use the scientific method or debate philosophy. But it can do everything a pigeon can. Is it general or not? And if it’s not, what makes human intelligence general in a way that pigeon intelligence isn’t?