3 ms·

what's your definition? AGI original definition is median human across almost all fields which I believe is basically achieved. If superhuman (better than best

what's your definition? AGI original definition is median human across almost all fields which I believe is basically achieved. If superhuman (better than best expert) I expect <2030 for all nonrobotic tasks and <2035 for all tasks

jltsiren 1y ago
Your "original definition" was always meaningless. A "Hello, World!" program is equally capable in most jobs as the median human. On the other hand, if the benchmark is what the median human can reasonably become (a professional with decades of experience), we are still far from there.
- Davidzheng 1y ago
  I agree with second part but not the first (far in capability not in timeline). I think you underestimate the distance of median wihout training and "hello world" in many economically meaningful jobs.
GolfPopper 1y ago
A "median human" can run a web search and report back on what they found without making stuff up, something I've yet to find an LLM capable of doing reliably.
- Davidzheng 1y ago
  I bet you median humans make up a nontrivial amount of things. Humans misremember all the time. If you ask for only quotes, LLMs can also do this without problems (I use o3 for search over google)
  - imtringued 1y ago
    Ah the classic "humans are fallible, AI is fallible, therefore AI is exactly like human intelligence". I guess if you believe this, then the AI is already smarter than you.
- ekianjo 1y ago
  maybe you havent been exposed to actual median humans much.
gnz11 1y ago
How are you coming to the conclusion that "median human" is "basically achieved"? Current AI has no means of understanding and synthesizing new ideas the way a human would. It's all generative.
- Davidzheng 1y ago
  synthesizing new ideas: in order to express the idea in our language it basically means you have some new combinations of existing building blocks, just sometimes the building blocks are low level enough and the combination is esoteric enough. It's a spectrum again. I think current models are in fact quite capable of combining existing ideas and building blocks in new ways (this is how human innovation also happens). Most of my evidence comes from asking newer models o3/gemini-2.5-pro for research-level mathematics questions which do not appear in existing literature but is of course connected with them. so these arguments by fundamental distinctions I believe all cannot work--the question is how new are the AI contributions. Nowadays there's of course still no theoretical breakthroughs in mathematics from AI (though biology could be close!). Also I think the AIs have understanding--but tbf the only thing we can test is through testing on tricky questions which I think support my side. Though of course some of these questions have interpretations which are not testable--so I don't want to argue about those.

jltsiren 1y ago

Your "original definition" was always meaningless. A "Hello, World!" program is equally capable in most jobs as the median human. On the other hand, if the benchmark is what the median human can reasonably become (a professional with decades of experience), we are still far from there.

Davidzheng 1y ago
I agree with second part but not the first (far in capability not in timeline). I think you underestimate the distance of median wihout training and "hello world" in many economically meaningful jobs.

GolfPopper 1y ago

A "median human" can run a web search and report back on what they found without making stuff up, something I've yet to find an LLM capable of doing reliably.

Davidzheng 1y ago
I bet you median humans make up a nontrivial amount of things. Humans misremember all the time. If you ask for only quotes, LLMs can also do this without problems (I use o3 for search over google)
- imtringued 1y ago
  Ah the classic "humans are fallible, AI is fallible, therefore AI is exactly like human intelligence". I guess if you believe this, then the AI is already smarter than you.
ekianjo 1y ago
maybe you havent been exposed to actual median humans much.

gnz11 1y ago

How are you coming to the conclusion that "median human" is "basically achieved"? Current AI has no means of understanding and synthesizing new ideas the way a human would. It's all generative.

Davidzheng 1y ago
synthesizing new ideas: in order to express the idea in our language it basically means you have some new combinations of existing building blocks, just sometimes the building blocks are low level enough and the combination is esoteric enough. It's a spectrum again. I think current models are in fact quite capable of combining existing ideas and building blocks in new ways (this is how human innovation also happens). Most of my evidence comes from asking newer models o3/gemini-2.5-pro for research-level mathematics questions which do not appear in existing literature but is of course connected with them. so these arguments by fundamental distinctions I believe all cannot work--the question is how new are the AI contributions. Nowadays there's of course still no theoretical breakthroughs in mathematics from AI (though biology could be close!). Also I think the AIs have understanding--but tbf the only thing we can test is through testing on tricky questions which I think support my side. Though of course some of these questions have interpretations which are not testable--so I don't want to argue about those.