3 ms·
> It's not cheating for people so asserting that it's cheating for machines just seems like goal post shifting more than anything. I genuinely appreciate this
by raydiatian 4y ago
> It's not cheating for people so asserting that it's cheating for machines just seems like goal post shifting more than anything.
I genuinely appreciate this argument, and was considering it myself. In which case, I’d almost argue that we “have” already achieved AGI, and maybe it’s just not that thrilling.
- famouswaffles 4y agoIf you define agi to be artificial and generally intelligent at the human level then yes we have. It seems though that definitions of agi have since shifted to "better than human experts in all tasks" in which case no...not yet.
- raydiatian 4y agoIsn’t that artificial super intelligence?
- famouswaffles 4y agothe posts keep shifting yes. the new definition of agi is much closer to super intelligence. However, depending on how close to experts the model is, there's room for more. If the model is basically on par with experts then it's still human fallible. But...suppose a general intelligence that is the level at each task as the chess engines of today is at chess. Basically the, "Oh you thought that was a mistake ?, no you just didn't understand the program" level of intelligence even for the smartest of humans.