I’m curious why you think the correct standard is beats the top human on all tasks instead of beats the average human on all tasks. I think it is generally conceived of that humans are general intelligences and by definition humans are average here. Why wouldn’t a computer program that can do better than the average human on all relevant tasks be an AGI?
I agree with the sentiment, but would like to be careful with interpreting the average human scores for AI benchmarks. Such scores are obtained under time constrains. And maybe not all human raters were sufficiently motivated to do their best. The ratings for top humans are more likely to be representative of the general human ability to do the task.
I’m curious why you think the correct standard is beats the top human on all tasks instead of beats the average human on all tasks. I think it is generally conceived of that humans are general intelligences and by definition humans are average here. Why wouldn’t a computer program that can do better than the average human on all relevant tasks be an AGI?
I agree with the sentiment, but would like to be careful with interpreting the average human scores for AI benchmarks. Such scores are obtained under time constrains. And maybe not all human raters were sufficiently motivated to do their best. The ratings for top humans are more likely to be representative of the general human ability to do the task.