You clearly didn't listen much since Chollet's point is exactly that there is no one task that can test for AI. The test he created is supposed to take that into account.
First, don't be a jerk. Second, what's your problem? That you think I said that "no single task can't be used to test for AI"? I initially said:
>> "If that's true then there's no way to test for intelligence by looking at the performance of a system at any particular task, or any finite set of tasks, and so there's no way to create a "test for intelligence"."
Stress on or any finite set of tasks.
So, no, I didn't refer to a single task, if that's what you mean. What the hell do you mean and what the hell is your problem? Why is everyone always such a dick in this kind of discussion?
Sorry. You, to me, came across as more interested in sharing your opinion than understanding what other people are saying. That's annoying. Maybe that's on me though.
Ok, you think no finite set of tasks can be used. Chollet is trying anyways. Maybe he is actually dynamically creating new tasks in the private set every time someone evaluates.
My main point was that I still think you're saying very similar things, quoting from the paper I mentioned:
> If a human plays chess at a high level, we can safely assume that this person is intelligent, because we implicitly know that they had to use their general intelligence to acquire this specific skill over their lifetime, which reflects their general ability to acquire many other possible skills in the same way. But the same assumption does not apply to a non human system that does not arrive at competence the way humans do. If intelligence lies in the process of acquiring skills then there is no task X such that skill at X demonstrates intelligence, unless X is a meta task involving skill acquisition across a broad range of tasks.
This to me sounds very similar to what you said:
> I'm guessing in other words that intelligence is the ability to come up with solutions to arbitrary problems.
