3 ms·

Nobody is going to be debating definitions when it's here. If there's a question, then the answer is no.

by ryanklee 3y ago

famouswaffles 3y ago
Lol that's not true at all. Many people have definitions of AGI that are partially or wholly mutually conflicting.
- ryanklee 3y ago
  My point is that actual AGI will make such debates totally irrelevant.
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    No it won't. What is "Actual AGI" and why is it not simply a machine that is generally intelligent ?
    - ryanklee 3y ago
      I think you might not be following my point. Actual AGI will be so enormously singular and distinct from anything we've ever encountered that only an idiot would look at it and say, "But hmmm, maybe this might not be it." The very fact of continued debates over definitions to act as criteria is all the signal we need to know that we aren't there yet.
      - famouswaffles 3y ago
        Why would it be "so enormously singular and distinct from anything we've ever encountered" ? What does being an Artificial General Intelligence have anything to do with any of that ? This is the point I'm making. You're hiding behind vague musings. ENIAC as the first general purpose computer was a declaration made years after the fact. Why do you think it's going to be any different here ?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  And yet, in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38113190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38113190, you said that AGI is "a bar we have passed". That statement assumes that we have a clear enough definition that you can tell whether we have passed it. But here you say that many people have conflicting definitions, that is, that there's not a clear agreed-upon definition. I don't think you can have it both ways.
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    Yes people have conflicting definitions of the specific term. But Artificial and Generally Intelligent is a bar that's been passed. Take a look at all those definitions i brought up and tell me which ones have anything to do with only being generally intelligent ?

Nobody is going to be debating definitions when it's here. If there's a question, then the answer is no.

famouswaffles 3y ago

Lol that's not true at all. Many people have definitions of AGI that are partially or wholly mutually conflicting.

ryanklee 3y ago
My point is that actual AGI will make such debates totally irrelevant.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  No it won't. What is "Actual AGI" and why is it not simply a machine that is generally intelligent ?
  - ryanklee 3y ago
    I think you might not be following my point. Actual AGI will be so enormously singular and distinct from anything we've ever encountered that only an idiot would look at it and say, "But hmmm, maybe this might not be it." The very fact of continued debates over definitions to act as criteria is all the signal we need to know that we aren't there yet.
    - famouswaffles 3y ago
      Why would it be "so enormously singular and distinct from anything we've ever encountered" ? What does being an Artificial General Intelligence have anything to do with any of that ? This is the point I'm making. You're hiding behind vague musings. ENIAC as the first general purpose computer was a declaration made years after the fact. Why do you think it's going to be any different here ?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
And yet, in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38113190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38113190, you said that AGI is "a bar we have passed". That statement assumes that we have a clear enough definition that you can tell whether we have passed it. But here you say that many people have conflicting definitions, that is, that there's not a clear agreed-upon definition. I don't think you can have it both ways.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  Yes people have conflicting definitions of the specific term. But Artificial and Generally Intelligent is a bar that's been passed. Take a look at all those definitions i brought up and tell me which ones have anything to do with only being generally intelligent ?