27 ms·
Loosely related, but I find the use of AGI (and sometimes even AI) as terms annoying lately. Especially in scientific papers, where I would imagine everything t
by sureglymop 1y ago
Loosely related, but I find the use of AGI (and sometimes even AI) as terms annoying lately. Especially in scientific papers, where I would imagine everything to be well defined. If at least in how it is used in that paper.
So, why can't we just come up with some definition for what AGI is? We could then, say, logically prove that some AI fits that definition. Even if this doesn't seem practically useful, it's theoretically much more useful than just using that term with no meaning.
Instead it kind of feels like it's an escape hatch. On wikipedia we have "a type of ai that would match or surpass human capabilities across virtually all cognitive tasks". How could we measure that? What good is this if we can't prove that a system has this property?
Bit of a rant but I hope it's somewhat legible still.
- AlienRobot 1y agoWe have a definition. "AI is whatever hasn't been done yet."[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
- CharlesW 1y ago"AI" and "AGI" are very different things.
- selfhoster11 1y agoYou don't need consensus on the meaning across the board. I maintain my own, more permissive milestone for what constitutes "AGI", but I have no expectations that others will share it. Much like "crypto" to me is still cryptography, not cryptocurrency - sometimes the mainstream will just have a different opinion.
- sureglymop 1y agoMy point is, it's not about the mainstream or marketing. In science, some rigor is expected. There doesn't need to be consensus if a definition is established within some context. It's perfectly fine to redefine something as needed for the research but only if that definition is declared.