I personally don't believe either that there is some fundamental difference between human consciousness and computation - so, I believe that in principle, AGI s

I personally don't believe either that there is some fundamental difference between human consciousness and computation - so, I believe that in principle, AGI should be possible. But I think he noted some concrete shortcomings that current models have that still place them not even close to AGI. In particular the ability to map words to their real-world concepts and imagining hypothetical situations with those concepts. Most of the trick questions the author was asking weren't about formulating a natural-sounding answer to novel input (though that is impressive enough and the network seems to excel at that task). They were more a test if the network "pulls its answers from books" or if it can really "imagine" the situation, i.e. perform a simulation, taking in the real-world characteristics of the question and come to a conclusion. Results suggested that the network indeed did not imagine the situations. I think other concrete aspects that are still missing would be social awareness and empathy, the ability to guess what another person is thinking or feeling. Adding to that would be sense of self and all that follows. Finally, there is the practical problem of acquiring world knowledge. Humans get a nonstop stream of training data on both world and social knowledge from the moment they were born :) Even more, it's extremely high-quality training data, because we're able to explore causations - "I did A and then B happened". Whereas most current networks today only seem to work with pre-existing training data, which would amount to correlations: "When A happens, B often happens as well". Because of that stuff, I'm still extremely sceptical on any claims that AGI is already archieved (or will be archived soon) - not because I think it's impossible but because it seems to me we have just scratched the surface of what intelligence and consciousness even entails. Another thought btw: I'm a bit surprised that there seems to be so little talk about animals in the whole AI discussion. There is lots of talk comparing computers with human intelligence - which seems to amount to how well an AI could mimic texts written by north american adults during their working hours - but I haven't read anything yet about how well we could build a robot that could survive in the wilderness or e.g. take part in the social dynamics of a wolf pack. If we're aiming to build AI that is as intelligent as a human, shouldn't we first be able to build one that is as intelligent as an animal?