13 ms·

GPT 1/2/3/4 is not AGI. I don't understand the fixation on this concept that is so far removed from what is happening here. Yes it's cool. Useful. Transformat

by catoc 4y ago

GPT 1/2/3/4 is not AGI. I don't understand the fixation on this concept that is so far removed from what is happening here. Yes it's cool. Useful. Transformative likely. But AGI...!? "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from... AGI" ?

skdotdan 4y ago
No one said it was. What some researchers hypothesize is that at the current rate of improvement, it wouldn't be especially unreasonable to expect AGI at GPT-N.
baq 4y ago
What is AGI? If an AGI is something that can create and deploy an improved version of itself, then if exponential rate of improvement is preserved, we’ll see it in this decade.
sebzim4500 4y ago
I like how the term AGI was invented because people couldn't agree on what AI was and now no-one can agree on what AGI is. I don't understand why anyone even bothers using the term given in any serious discussion you need to define it up front anyway.
- z3c0 4y ago
  The distinction between AGI and Narrow AI has existed for almost 30 years.
- nomel 4y ago
  I think a requirement of AGI is a feedback loop to allow continuous execution and “consciousness”.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Really? How would we even test for that?
- nradov 4y ago
  AGI can pass a rigorous Turing test. By rigorous I mean conducted over at least several hours by a panel of expert evaluators drawn from a wide range of academic disciplines such as computer science, philosophy, psychology, law, history, physics, mathematics, biology, medicine, sociology, and communications. While such evaluations are necessarily subjective, if a panel of experts agrees that a computer system acts like an AGI then it would be tough for the rest of us to dispute. GPT4 is far from being able to pass such a test, and I don't expect GPT99 to get there either. A fundamentally different approach will be needed.
  - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    > By rigorous I mean conducted over at least several hours by a panel of expert evaluators drawn from a wide range of academic disciplines such as computer science, philosophy, psychology, law, history, physics, mathematics, biology, medicine, sociology, and communications. Passing such a test is not a property expected of the average human yet the average human is considered a general intelligence, therefore this is not a property of a general intelligence.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Are you even familiar with the Turing test? Passing doesn't require the subject to demonstrate any particular level of knowledge or expertise. The subject only has to convince the evaluators that it is roughly as intelligent as an average human. Average humans are expected to pass such a Turing test.
      - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
        Why should a panel exist in the first place if you are not testing knowledge? Intelligence is independent of one's knowledge. Plenty of intelligent but uneducated people, and plenty of educated people - or even people with perfect recall - that are not particularly intelligent. If you are testing intelligence you should be able to distill it to particular tests independent of domain expertise. Any intelligent agent should be capable of in-context learning. So how would you go about doing that? If you do find such a test, do you expect that only the average human and above will pass? Does that not imply that the remaining 4Bn people are not generally intelligent?
- catoc 4y ago
  AGI clearly has a connotation of sentience and intent, of general intelligence - as opposed to a tool, however intricate. Read Nick Bostrom (yes I know, as a person he's cancelled, probably even rightly so, still scientifically relevant reference; and totally not a discussion I want to get into further here, pls)
  - antibasilisk 4y ago
    But LLMs have been proven to demonstrate intent, and sentience is a philosophical question that doesn't really make any meaningful difference outside of questions of morality.
    - bootsmann 4y ago
      >But LLMs have been proven to demonstrate intent I'd like to see this proof. Everything we've seen so far is just the AI reproducing what humans do, which happens to be writing with intent.
      - antibasilisk 4y ago
        The two are not meaningfully distinguishable on a materialistic level.
    - catoc 4y ago
      I would say that the strings that are output by LLMs may fluently describe intent and purpose, but that actual intent requires a self awareness that utterly absent. Just like the constant annoying 'apologies' do not in any way signify the model actually feels sorry.
      - pixl97 4y ago
        >Just like the constant annoying 'apologies' do not in any way signify the model actually feels sorry. So your average corporation? >I would say that the strings that are output by LLMs may fluently describe intent and purpose, but that actual intent requires a self awareness that utterly absent The only reason I only partially/somewhat agree with this is current LLMs have no learning feedback loop as a means of short term actions to long term improvement. The moment that changes I'll take your statement and throw it in the trash bin of history. LLMs output have no (at least self-)purpose because they are just text output. The moment that text output goes to tooling, that tooling performs actions, and those actions are fed back into training the model then purpose is given. The self awareness loop is complete.
elforce002 4y ago
This. The hype is getting out of control. Bet money we'll have a bubble 1 or 2 years from now. It was the same with crypto bros, etc... Heck, even zuck is steering away from vr and going all in with "AI".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- samsolomon 4y ago
  It seems like there are a lot of practical uses for generative AI where that was never clear with crypto. It is very easy to imagine how this type of technology can be applied to everyday tasks. The same can't be said about crypto.
  - mjr00 4y ago
    While I do think GPT will be quite useful, it's revisionist history to say that people weren't talking about crypto or Blockchain being transformative during the peak of the hype cycle. Plenty of people talking about how blockchain was going to disrupt supply chain logistics, bank settlements and identity management.
    - Kiro 4y ago
      The similarities stopped once GPT started providing actual real value right here, right now, while blockchain is still stuck in speculative talking.
    - samsolomon 4y ago
      I think the difference is that most people have a difficult time imagining what disruption to supply chain logistics looks like. But thanks to ChatGPT and Midjouney it’s very clear what AI writing a poem or generating an image from a description looks like.
- catoc 4y ago
  Indeed. 'Crypto' used to mean 'cryptography'. Now it apparently equates to 'NFT'... and zuck will likely soon re-rename his company to metai over all this hype.
rootusrootus 4y ago
I keep seeing the same leap over and over. "We don't precisely know how the human brain works, and we don't exactly know how GPT works, but they both have things we call neurons and they both learn, so what's the difference between a human brain and GPT?" Humans really do love to anthropomorphize everything.
- davidthewatson 4y ago
  Indeed. It's a page from the DSM-5 scientism playbook. The thing to keep in mind is that robots love to roboticize everything, including humans: https://medium.com/@jannaq/the-robot-takeover-is-already-here-5aa55e1d136a#:~:text=more%20robot%2Dlike.-,Algorithms%20are%20taking%20over%20much%20of%20the%20human%20work%20of%20hiring,the%20robots%20are%20most%20likely%20to%20hire%20the%20most%20robotic%20humans.,-The%20tests%20for https://medium.com/@jannaq/the-robot-takeover-is-already-her...
cheeselip420 4y ago
So a "regular" AI is one trained to perform a specific task - like recognizing dogs in an image or handwriting recognition. These LLMs are trained for one skill: given the previous N tokens, what's the next token. From this single skill, they can generalize to many many many many useful use-cases. Is that general enough? Or do we need to wait for the goalposts to move again and then blow past that limit too? Stop arguing semantics and start building cool shit.
- catoc 4y ago
  It's not semantics, but building cool shit I like :-)
- misnome 4y ago
  Goalpost moving? Since when was this the goalpost of… AGI.
  - lordfrito 4y ago
    I think it's more about the goalposts "coming into view more clearly" as we get closer to what we thought AGI was going to be. There's no question that ChatGPT could pass the Turing test (assuming it's told to try and to not to say it's a computer). So, from one standpoint we've made it. But I'm in the camp that says this really isn't the AGI I thought we were going to get. Semantics matter now, and we need better definitions of what we're trying to do now. I believe an important part of the AGI problem has been solved (or is at least downhill from here). What to do about the other parts? Let's better define what we do and don't have. That and come up with better tests to replace the now outdated Turing test.
    - cheeselip420 4y ago
      Yeah this is a valuable point - AGI just isn't specific enough. ChatGPT is, an artificial generalized intelligence. But is that a useful label? I imagine we'll be needing to find a way to better define and quantify intelligence (which has been a vexing issue for a long time)
    - 4y ago
PartiallyTyped 4y ago
Why is it not an AGI? I keep seeing naysayers complain that it is not, but nobody actually articulates exactly what makes it a non-AGI in a manner that is sufficiently robust to argumentation. I am willing to play the GPT's advocate and have this argument here provided that I do not get rate limited. Edit: I'd like to respond to some of the comments but I have been rate limited :')
- catoc 4y ago
  Not trying to be a naysayer or downplay how cool GPT4 is, but the term 'AGI' has existed for decades and is suffering from general confusion and inflation (again like 'crypto' now being read as 'coins' or even 'NFT' by the general public). See eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc... or better read Bostrom's book "Super Intelligence"
- wizofaus 4y ago
  I've posted a number of times why I don't think current GPT tech classifies as AGI and certainly not human-like intelligence, as have others. Ask it to solve novel mathematical and logic problems, for a start (even ones you'd expect high school kids to manage), or simple word puzzles (anagrams and the like - again, avoiding "known" examples that it's likely to have come across in its training data). Further, an AGI should logically attempt to "improve" its understanding of the world during a conversation, yet chat GPT never initiates a topic or asks you anything at all (even to clarify what you mean). It also repeatedly reminds you that it is only a language model.
  - antibasilisk 4y ago
    Machines can never obtain human like intelligence because they are foundationally not human like, that doesn't mean they lack intelligence. That's like saying dolphins lack intelligence.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      I wouldn't claim ChatGPT lacks intelligence though. Clearly in terms of language comprehension and generation it does so.
jstx1 4y ago
All the debate or whether it's AGI seems really pointless because the outcome doesn't change anything. Agree that it's AGI, don't agree -- either way the model is the same amount of good/useful/dangerous/ etc.
01100011 4y ago
100% But we also shouldn't forget that things that are definitely not AI can be extremely disruptive and groundbreaking. People are worried that AGI will rise up and kill us, but the definitely-not-AGI we have now is already sufficient to, say, create a drone army capable of killing based on arbitrary characteristics like race or skin color, or to demoralize us with disinformation campaigns.
- catoc 4y ago
  Disruptive, absolutely possible. Releasing a killer drone army... absolutely not... the required intent is absent. Being abused as a tool by sentient humans to demoralize others (or maybe even to release a drone army - if sufficiently interfaced) sure.
kenjackson 4y ago
Any sufficiently advanced tech is not indistinguishable from AGI. The original term, magic, really is more appropriate. The ability to factor any number quickly doesn't look like AGI, but can seem like magic. And AGI is also not "mimics how the brain works". The original Turing Test was good because it really sat at the heart of the issue. Does the computer behave like a human during an interaction? At the end of the day we know very little about what makes us human (from a behviorial perspective), but we know it when we see it. The question of AGI was never really an issue until ChatGPT. Asking an AI a question like, "Was Steve Jobs more or less effective as a manager than Bill Gates, just from a people manager perspective?" was moot as we had no technology that could really even parse that question, much less put together a coherent answer. Now our main gripe is that the AI answer to this question is more verbose and provides more context than what most humans would give.
- throwway120385 4y ago
  The real problem is also that we have no way of knowing whether the ChatGPT answer is based on factual information. It is very skilled at inventing convincing facts from whole cloth.
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    That is a problem with ChatGPT, but it has nothing to do with it being AGI or not. Politicians do this so regularly that we have websites like FactCheck. The question is can you tell that this is a computer making these facts up or do you think it is a human making up the facts.
    - slowmovintarget 4y ago
      Politicians, generally speaking, know when they're making things up. ChatGPT and LLMs in general have no state evaluation on the text they've produced indicating its proximity to the truth. This has everything to do with ChatGPT not being AGI.
      - 4y ago
hackerlight 4y ago
> GPT 1/2/3/4 is not AGI. While true, that's the wrong lesson. The right lesson is GPT 1/2/3/4 are progressively getting closer and closer to AGI. You can't blame us for extrapolating only a few years into the future and planning for it.
- catoc 4y ago
  That is quite a claim. Would be cool if true. Do you have any references to back this up? Why would scaling up turn a model that strings tokens together into something that can reason by itself, unprompted, with intent?
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Why is this whole 'unprompted' even important? A huge portion of human intelligence comes from external prompting (just research how very screwed up infants of exceptional neglect are). A model, or a human is going to need input/output from the external world. We're just arguing the semantics of the IO device at this point.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    > Do you have any references to back this up? The reference is the GPT-4 release paper. It's getting progressively better at things that require intelligence, like writing code and doing unseen exams across various fields that humans find difficult. The generality and depth of intelligence is progressively improving. > unprompted, with intent Neither of these are necessary for AGI. Intelligence doesn't require intent. Intelligence doesn't require something to be "unprompted" (which human intelligence isn't, either, our brain is being constantly prompted by our external senses).

by catoc 4y ago

skdotdan 4y ago

No one said it was. What some researchers hypothesize is that at the current rate of improvement, it wouldn't be especially unreasonable to expect AGI at GPT-N.

baq 4y ago

What is AGI? If an AGI is something that can create and deploy an improved version of itself, then if exponential rate of improvement is preserved, we’ll see it in this decade.

sebzim4500 4y ago

I like how the term AGI was invented because people couldn't agree on what AI was and now no-one can agree on what AGI is. I don't understand why anyone even bothers using the term given in any serious discussion you need to define it up front anyway.

z3c0 4y ago
The distinction between AGI and Narrow AI has existed for almost 30 years.
nomel 4y ago
I think a requirement of AGI is a feedback loop to allow continuous execution and “consciousness”.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Really? How would we even test for that?
nradov 4y ago
AGI can pass a rigorous Turing test. By rigorous I mean conducted over at least several hours by a panel of expert evaluators drawn from a wide range of academic disciplines such as computer science, philosophy, psychology, law, history, physics, mathematics, biology, medicine, sociology, and communications. While such evaluations are necessarily subjective, if a panel of experts agrees that a computer system acts like an AGI then it would be tough for the rest of us to dispute. GPT4 is far from being able to pass such a test, and I don't expect GPT99 to get there either. A fundamentally different approach will be needed.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  > By rigorous I mean conducted over at least several hours by a panel of expert evaluators drawn from a wide range of academic disciplines such as computer science, philosophy, psychology, law, history, physics, mathematics, biology, medicine, sociology, and communications. Passing such a test is not a property expected of the average human yet the average human is considered a general intelligence, therefore this is not a property of a general intelligence.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Are you even familiar with the Turing test? Passing doesn't require the subject to demonstrate any particular level of knowledge or expertise. The subject only has to convince the evaluators that it is roughly as intelligent as an average human. Average humans are expected to pass such a Turing test.
    - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
      Why should a panel exist in the first place if you are not testing knowledge? Intelligence is independent of one's knowledge. Plenty of intelligent but uneducated people, and plenty of educated people - or even people with perfect recall - that are not particularly intelligent. If you are testing intelligence you should be able to distill it to particular tests independent of domain expertise. Any intelligent agent should be capable of in-context learning. So how would you go about doing that? If you do find such a test, do you expect that only the average human and above will pass? Does that not imply that the remaining 4Bn people are not generally intelligent?
catoc 4y ago
AGI clearly has a connotation of sentience and intent, of general intelligence - as opposed to a tool, however intricate. Read Nick Bostrom (yes I know, as a person he's cancelled, probably even rightly so, still scientifically relevant reference; and totally not a discussion I want to get into further here, pls)
- antibasilisk 4y ago
  But LLMs have been proven to demonstrate intent, and sentience is a philosophical question that doesn't really make any meaningful difference outside of questions of morality.
  - bootsmann 4y ago
    >But LLMs have been proven to demonstrate intent I'd like to see this proof. Everything we've seen so far is just the AI reproducing what humans do, which happens to be writing with intent.
    - antibasilisk 4y ago
      The two are not meaningfully distinguishable on a materialistic level.
  - catoc 4y ago
    I would say that the strings that are output by LLMs may fluently describe intent and purpose, but that actual intent requires a self awareness that utterly absent. Just like the constant annoying 'apologies' do not in any way signify the model actually feels sorry.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      >Just like the constant annoying 'apologies' do not in any way signify the model actually feels sorry. So your average corporation? >I would say that the strings that are output by LLMs may fluently describe intent and purpose, but that actual intent requires a self awareness that utterly absent The only reason I only partially/somewhat agree with this is current LLMs have no learning feedback loop as a means of short term actions to long term improvement. The moment that changes I'll take your statement and throw it in the trash bin of history. LLMs output have no (at least self-)purpose because they are just text output. The moment that text output goes to tooling, that tooling performs actions, and those actions are fed back into training the model then purpose is given. The self awareness loop is complete.

elforce002 4y ago

This. The hype is getting out of control. Bet money we'll have a bubble 1 or 2 years from now. It was the same with crypto bros, etc... Heck, even zuck is steering away from vr and going all in with "AI".

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
samsolomon 4y ago
It seems like there are a lot of practical uses for generative AI where that was never clear with crypto. It is very easy to imagine how this type of technology can be applied to everyday tasks. The same can't be said about crypto.
- mjr00 4y ago
  While I do think GPT will be quite useful, it's revisionist history to say that people weren't talking about crypto or Blockchain being transformative during the peak of the hype cycle. Plenty of people talking about how blockchain was going to disrupt supply chain logistics, bank settlements and identity management.
  - Kiro 4y ago
    The similarities stopped once GPT started providing actual real value right here, right now, while blockchain is still stuck in speculative talking.
  - samsolomon 4y ago
    I think the difference is that most people have a difficult time imagining what disruption to supply chain logistics looks like. But thanks to ChatGPT and Midjouney it’s very clear what AI writing a poem or generating an image from a description looks like.
catoc 4y ago
Indeed. 'Crypto' used to mean 'cryptography'. Now it apparently equates to 'NFT'... and zuck will likely soon re-rename his company to metai over all this hype.

rootusrootus 4y ago

I keep seeing the same leap over and over. "We don't precisely know how the human brain works, and we don't exactly know how GPT works, but they both have things we call neurons and they both learn, so what's the difference between a human brain and GPT?" Humans really do love to anthropomorphize everything.

davidthewatson 4y ago
Indeed. It's a page from the DSM-5 scientism playbook. The thing to keep in mind is that robots love to roboticize everything, including humans: https://medium.com/@jannaq/the-robot-takeover-is-already-here-5aa55e1d136a#:~:text=more%20robot%2Dlike.-,Algorithms%20are%20taking%20over%20much%20of%20the%20human%20work%20of%20hiring,the%20robots%20are%20most%20likely%20to%20hire%20the%20most%20robotic%20humans.,-The%20tests%20for https://medium.com/@jannaq/the-robot-takeover-is-already-her...

cheeselip420 4y ago

So a "regular" AI is one trained to perform a specific task - like recognizing dogs in an image or handwriting recognition. These LLMs are trained for one skill: given the previous N tokens, what's the next token. From this single skill, they can generalize to many many many many useful use-cases. Is that general enough? Or do we need to wait for the goalposts to move again and then blow past that limit too? Stop arguing semantics and start building cool shit.

catoc 4y ago
It's not semantics, but building cool shit I like :-)
misnome 4y ago
Goalpost moving? Since when was this the goalpost of… AGI.
- lordfrito 4y ago
  I think it's more about the goalposts "coming into view more clearly" as we get closer to what we thought AGI was going to be. There's no question that ChatGPT could pass the Turing test (assuming it's told to try and to not to say it's a computer). So, from one standpoint we've made it. But I'm in the camp that says this really isn't the AGI I thought we were going to get. Semantics matter now, and we need better definitions of what we're trying to do now. I believe an important part of the AGI problem has been solved (or is at least downhill from here). What to do about the other parts? Let's better define what we do and don't have. That and come up with better tests to replace the now outdated Turing test.
  - cheeselip420 4y ago
    Yeah this is a valuable point - AGI just isn't specific enough. ChatGPT is, an artificial generalized intelligence. But is that a useful label? I imagine we'll be needing to find a way to better define and quantify intelligence (which has been a vexing issue for a long time)
  - 4y ago

PartiallyTyped 4y ago

Why is it not an AGI? I keep seeing naysayers complain that it is not, but nobody actually articulates exactly what makes it a non-AGI in a manner that is sufficiently robust to argumentation. I am willing to play the GPT's advocate and have this argument here provided that I do not get rate limited. Edit: I'd like to respond to some of the comments but I have been rate limited :')

catoc 4y ago
Not trying to be a naysayer or downplay how cool GPT4 is, but the term 'AGI' has existed for decades and is suffering from general confusion and inflation (again like 'crypto' now being read as 'coins' or even 'NFT' by the general public). See eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc... or better read Bostrom's book "Super Intelligence"
wizofaus 4y ago
I've posted a number of times why I don't think current GPT tech classifies as AGI and certainly not human-like intelligence, as have others. Ask it to solve novel mathematical and logic problems, for a start (even ones you'd expect high school kids to manage), or simple word puzzles (anagrams and the like - again, avoiding "known" examples that it's likely to have come across in its training data). Further, an AGI should logically attempt to "improve" its understanding of the world during a conversation, yet chat GPT never initiates a topic or asks you anything at all (even to clarify what you mean). It also repeatedly reminds you that it is only a language model.
- antibasilisk 4y ago
  Machines can never obtain human like intelligence because they are foundationally not human like, that doesn't mean they lack intelligence. That's like saying dolphins lack intelligence.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    I wouldn't claim ChatGPT lacks intelligence though. Clearly in terms of language comprehension and generation it does so.

jstx1 4y ago

All the debate or whether it's AGI seems really pointless because the outcome doesn't change anything. Agree that it's AGI, don't agree -- either way the model is the same amount of good/useful/dangerous/ etc.

01100011 4y ago

100% But we also shouldn't forget that things that are definitely not AI can be extremely disruptive and groundbreaking. People are worried that AGI will rise up and kill us, but the definitely-not-AGI we have now is already sufficient to, say, create a drone army capable of killing based on arbitrary characteristics like race or skin color, or to demoralize us with disinformation campaigns.

catoc 4y ago
Disruptive, absolutely possible. Releasing a killer drone army... absolutely not... the required intent is absent. Being abused as a tool by sentient humans to demoralize others (or maybe even to release a drone army - if sufficiently interfaced) sure.

kenjackson 4y ago

Any sufficiently advanced tech is not indistinguishable from AGI. The original term, magic, really is more appropriate. The ability to factor any number quickly doesn't look like AGI, but can seem like magic. And AGI is also not "mimics how the brain works". The original Turing Test was good because it really sat at the heart of the issue. Does the computer behave like a human during an interaction? At the end of the day we know very little about what makes us human (from a behviorial perspective), but we know it when we see it. The question of AGI was never really an issue until ChatGPT. Asking an AI a question like, "Was Steve Jobs more or less effective as a manager than Bill Gates, just from a people manager perspective?" was moot as we had no technology that could really even parse that question, much less put together a coherent answer. Now our main gripe is that the AI answer to this question is more verbose and provides more context than what most humans would give.

throwway120385 4y ago
The real problem is also that we have no way of knowing whether the ChatGPT answer is based on factual information. It is very skilled at inventing convincing facts from whole cloth.
- kenjackson 4y ago
  That is a problem with ChatGPT, but it has nothing to do with it being AGI or not. Politicians do this so regularly that we have websites like FactCheck. The question is can you tell that this is a computer making these facts up or do you think it is a human making up the facts.
  - slowmovintarget 4y ago
    Politicians, generally speaking, know when they're making things up. ChatGPT and LLMs in general have no state evaluation on the text they've produced indicating its proximity to the truth. This has everything to do with ChatGPT not being AGI.
    - 4y ago

hackerlight 4y ago

> GPT 1/2/3/4 is not AGI. While true, that's the wrong lesson. The right lesson is GPT 1/2/3/4 are progressively getting closer and closer to AGI. You can't blame us for extrapolating only a few years into the future and planning for it.

catoc 4y ago
That is quite a claim. Would be cool if true. Do you have any references to back this up? Why would scaling up turn a model that strings tokens together into something that can reason by itself, unprompted, with intent?
- pixl97 4y ago
  Why is this whole 'unprompted' even important? A huge portion of human intelligence comes from external prompting (just research how very screwed up infants of exceptional neglect are). A model, or a human is going to need input/output from the external world. We're just arguing the semantics of the IO device at this point.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  > Do you have any references to back this up? The reference is the GPT-4 release paper. It's getting progressively better at things that require intelligence, like writing code and doing unseen exams across various fields that humans find difficult. The generality and depth of intelligence is progressively improving. > unprompted, with intent Neither of these are necessary for AGI. Intelligence doesn't require intent. Intelligence doesn't require something to be "unprompted" (which human intelligence isn't, either, our brain is being constantly prompted by our external senses).