3 ms·
This seems to be so broad a definition as to no longer mean anything useful. People in general are interested in capabilities or economic impact, and GPT-2 cle
by theptip 2y ago
This seems to be so broad a definition as to no longer mean anything useful.
People in general are interested in capabilities or economic impact, and GPT-2 cleared no notable thresholds in those regards.
I prefer the exact opposite approach: let’s use a strict definition, and have levels to make it really explicit what we are talking about.
Here is a good one:
“Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI”
https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462 https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462
- sigmoid10 2y agoPeople will never agree on this. We've known about the concept of intelligence for much, much longer than computers have been around and we still don't have a common definition or set of rules to check. That also makes things like consciousness and death pretty hard to define in medicine, leading to inconsistent rules across jurisdictions. For AGI in particular, I guarantee you that no matter which test gets beaten, the majority of humanity will always just move the goalpost and claim it's not "real" AGI because "reasons." Because the opposite would mean they have to admit that they are now the lesser intelligence on the planet.