> Miss those, and you're not maximally useful. And if it's not maximally useful, it's by definition not AGI.
I know hundreds of natural general intelligences who are not maximally useful, and dozens who are not at all useful. What justifies changing the definition of general intelligence for artificial ones?
I know hundreds of natural general intelligences who are not maximally useful, and dozens who are not at all useful. What justifies changing the definition of general intelligence for artificial ones?