I said that "I think we are a few breakthroughs away from something could pass as AGI". That means, first, that I don't think we're there and so I don't conside

I said that "I think we are a few breakthroughs away from something could pass as AGI". That means, first, that I don't think we're there and so I don't consider chatgpt AGI, and second that even something that "passes" as AGI at first glance might not necessarily be so under close inspection. But at the same time, I won't call what chatgpt is doing parroting. It's not just repeating input data as-is, at least it's capable of applying some transformations on that data. Most of the time the transformation is useful, occasionally it's pretty borked. Parroting to me would be just repeating the training data without much transformation. > it quite literally have no understanding of what it writes Even though I DON'T think gpt AGI, I don't consider that a deciding factor. Humans can also show no understanding of what we write or read, and I consider us "GI".