Russell defines "intelligence" as "machines that achieve their objectives". My toaster certainly achieves its objective of making toast. It even uses feedback from a sensor to know when it has achieved the goal.

It is not the achieving of objectives that motivates me. It is the defining of objectives, otherwise known as choosing research goals. Usually I find that the original research goals change, grow more complex, and spawn yet more goals. It is the "side-effect" of learning that motivates my efforts, not the achievement of goals.

It is, of course, open to debate whether I'm a "general purpose intelligence". I would be the first to argue that I am not. There are areas, like writing good music, which despite my years-long best efforts are a complete failure. I can't understand why I fail.