Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The average human tested scores 60%. So the machines are already smarter on an individual basis than the average human. Maybe it's testing the wrong things then. Even those of use who are merely average can do lots of things that machines don't seem to be very good at. I think ability to learn should be a core part of any AGI. Take a toddler who has never seen anybody doing laundry before and you can teach them in…
There's no shortage of laundry-folding robot demos these days. Some claim to benefit from only minimal monkey-see/monkey-do levels of training, but I don't know how credible those claims are.
A robot designed to fold laundry isn't very interesting. A general purpose robot that I can bring into my home and show it how to do things that the designers never thought of is very interesting.