> Your criterion would suggest the answer of "no" to any of those cases, even though those cover much of the same use cases as flying, and possibly some new, more interesting ones.
Is it a problem though? Their existence are unrelated to how we categorize them.
That matters only in communication. “if everybody agrees” lowers/removes the risk of miscommunication.
If “hovercraft is flying” for you, but not for 50% the world, it makes it somewhat more difficult to communicate.
(Easily solved with some qualifications, but that requires admission the questionability of “hovercraft is flying”)
> you're limiting the definition to that which is familiar, not that which is interesting.
You made an Interesting point - good food for thought.
Counterpoint: It seems natural and useful that only similar things get to use same word.
> And I don't think an AGI must be limited …
Could you expand on why does it matter and what would be impacted by such lenient (or strict) classification?
I think it matters merely by the way we set our expectations relative to what is going to come - and what has come already. I'm feeling an undercurrent of thought that is implying: this is not X (intelligence, understanding, whatever), so there's no need to consider it seriously.
> I'm feeling an undercurrent of thought that is implying: this is not X, so there's no need to consider it seriously.
True. I doubt that field experts are directly affected by the naming, but indirect effect might come via less knowledgable (AI wise) financial decision makers.
I see a risk that those decision makers (and society) would be mislead if they were promised AGI (based on their “strict” understanding, what’s in the movies), but received AGI (based on “relaxed” meaning). Informed consent is usually good.
Though surely that can be resolved with more public discourse; maybe “relaxed” version will become the default expectation.
Is it a problem though? Their existence are unrelated to how we categorize them.
That matters only in communication. “if everybody agrees” lowers/removes the risk of miscommunication.
If “hovercraft is flying” for you, but not for 50% the world, it makes it somewhat more difficult to communicate. (Easily solved with some qualifications, but that requires admission the questionability of “hovercraft is flying”)
> you're limiting the definition to that which is familiar, not that which is interesting.
You made an Interesting point - good food for thought.
Counterpoint: It seems natural and useful that only similar things get to use same word.
> And I don't think an AGI must be limited …
Could you expand on why does it matter and what would be impacted by such lenient (or strict) classification?