2 ms·

> This is subtly but crucially importantly different from 'AI with very general training'. I am not being as precise on the Internet as I would be if this was

> This is subtly but crucially importantly different from 'AI with very general training'. I am not being as precise on the Internet as I would be if this was a paper perhaps, and for that I apologize :-) However, just reading the top comment chain on this story, and other discussions elsewhere, I think there is a lot of cross-talk where AGI is being confused for sapient AI. I don't get the sense that there is a definition as generally accepted as we would like.

jacquesm 3y ago
That's fair, but it's a big step to using a term in a way that it clearly isn't meant to be used (or at least, that's how I perceive it). The fact that we continuously seem to redefine what "AI" means implies that we also redefine what "AGI" means so it's not as if you are alone in this. By my 1980's standards we have AGI but the degree of "I" is still below human level, by my 2024 standards we do not have AGI just yet but what we do have is already so powerful that I'm not even sure to what extent it matters. Weaponizing what's there today already has the potential to destabilize our societies, having an even more powerful version of this (or just a faster one of the current crop) will change the world in ways that are hard to foresee or predict.