> It seems that even if someone creates a model that can "solve" ARC, it still is not indicative of AGI since it is not "general" anymore
I recently explained why I like ARC to a non-technical friend this way: "When an AI solves ARC it won't be proof of AGI. It's the opposite. As long as ARC remains unsolved I'm confident we're not even close to AGI."
For the sake of being provocative, I'd even argue that ARC remaining unsolved is a sign we're not yet making meaningful progress in the right direction. AGI is the top of Everest. ARC is base camp.
Why is it necessary? Could a spider solve ARC-AGI, or could a pigeon, or a cat? And if an animal doesn't need to solve ARC-AGI to be intelligent, then why does an AGI?
I recently explained why I like ARC to a non-technical friend this way: "When an AI solves ARC it won't be proof of AGI. It's the opposite. As long as ARC remains unsolved I'm confident we're not even close to AGI."
For the sake of being provocative, I'd even argue that ARC remaining unsolved is a sign we're not yet making meaningful progress in the right direction. AGI is the top of Everest. ARC is base camp.