Comment by biophysboy
9 months ago
I like chollet's definition: something that can quickly learn any skill without any innate prior knowledge or training.
9 months ago
I like chollet's definition: something that can quickly learn any skill without any innate prior knowledge or training.
That seems to rule out most humans. I still can’t cook despite being in the kitchen for thousands of hours.
Then you're not intelligent at cooking (haha!). Maybe my definition is better for "superintelligent" since it seems to imply boundless competence. I think humans are intelligent in that we can rapidly learn a surprising number of things (talk, walk, arithmetic)
> I think humans are intelligent in that we can rapidly learn a surprising number of things (talk, walk, arithmetic)
Rapid is relative, I suppose. On average, it takes tens of thousands of hours before the human is able to walk in a primitive way and even longer to gain competence. That is an excruciatingly long time compared to, say, a bovine calf, which can start walking within minutes after birth.
1 reply →
I like Chollet's line of thinking.
Yet, if you take "any" literally, the answer is simple - there will never be one. Not even for practical reasons, but closer to why there isn't "a set of all sets".
Picking a sensible benchmark is the hard part.
I think its more of a measurable quantity than a intelligent/non-intelligent threshold binary. Chollet literally made a paper defining it as something like (skill*generalization)/(experience+priors). I don't think its a flawless model, but also I didn't create keras