I interpret “artificial” in “artificial general intelligence” as “non-biological”.
So in Tao’s statement I interpret “genuine” not as an adverb modifying the “artificial” adjective but as an attributive adjective modifying the noun “intelligence”, describing its quality… “genuine intelligence that is non-biological in nature”
So in Tao’s statement I interpret “genuine” not as an adverb modifying the “artificial” adjective but as an attributive adjective modifying the noun “intelligence”, describing its quality… “genuine intelligence that is non-biological in nature”
That's definitely possible. But it seems redundant to phrase it that way. That is to say, the goal (the end goal anyway) of the AI enterprise has always been, at least as I've always understood it, to make "genuine intelligence that is non-biological in nature". That said, Terry is a mathematician, not an "AI person" so maybe it makes more sense when you look at it from that perspective. I've been immersed in AI stuff for 35+ years, so I may have developed a bit of myopia in some regards.
I agree, it’s redundant. To us humans - to me at least - intelligence is always general (calculator: not; chimpansee: a little), so “general intelligence” can also already be considered redundant. Using “genuine” is more redundancy being heaped on (with the assumed goal of making a distinction between “genuine” AGI and tools that appear smart in limited domains)