It's a very interesting question.

Personally I take mammalian intelligence as the relevant standard we're actually aiming at.

So I'd say mouse+.

Houseflys, I think, are closer to non-intelligent than intelligent.

That's a little chauvinist! Birds regularly run circles around mice... er, so to speak.

My view is: mammalian is sufficient, but not necessary.

Crow-level intelligence is probable likewise sufficient.

I think aiming at mammalian is a good long-term ambition. I think, either way, we are hundreds of years off.

Surely the AGI researchers have a benchmark though, don't they? Somebody else mentioned the Turing Test which is something...

I dont think there are any AGI researchers. At least, I dont think computer science has much to do with AGI.

The turing test is also not an AGI test, it's a "good enough" standard for fooling people.

Intelligence fundamentally requires a multitude of environmental capabilities. The turing test considers only a single i/o boundary.

AGI implies it can pass a Turing test, which means it has a better-than-average chance of acting more "human" than a competing human.

I'm assuming you are aware of the difficulties for machines to do even the most basic of things that a living being can do with a brain the size of a pea. A housefly can fly and navigate effortless through most complex scenarios that it evolved to navigate (even though the same fly can get stuck behind a glass window and eventually die).

So yeah, even getting that level of intelligence would be a huge win. However, most people mean close to human level intelligence when they mean AGI even if it's one narrow specialization.

> even if it's one narrow specialization.

Obviously that already exists even with g.o.f.a.i.s so that is not that impressive.

The impressive thing is something more general than that.

Doesn't the G in AGI imply that narrow specializations aren't the target?