3 ms·

> The goal of AGI is to make programs that can do lots of things. Wait, is it?

rvnx 1y ago
We reached AGI about 30 years ago then
thewebguyd 1y ago
lol. The definition of AGI seems to change on the daily, and usually coincides with whatever the describer is trying to sell.
- adeelk93 1y ago
  I’d amend that to - it coincides with whatever the describer is trying to get funding for
lm28469 1y ago
That certainly how it feels to me. Every demo seems like it's presenting some kind of socially maladjusted silicon valley nerd's wet dream. Half of it doesn't interest non tech people, the other half seems designed for teenagers. Look at this image of Zuckerberg demoing his new product: https://imgur.com/1naGLfp https://imgur.com/1naGLfp Or gpt5 press release: "look at this shitty game it made", "look at the bars on this graph showing how we outperform some other model by 2% in a benchmark that doesn't actually represent anything"
- mind-blight 1y ago
  GPT-5 is a bit better -particularly around consistency - and a fair amount cheaper. For all of my use cases, that's a huge win. Products using AI powered days processing (a lot of what I use it for) don't need mind blowing new features. I just want it to be better at summarizing and instruction following, and I want it to be cheaper. GPT-5 seems to knock all of that out of the park
  - benjiro 1y ago
    > GPT-5 is a bit better -particularly around consistency - and a fair amount cheaper. For all of my use cases, that's a huge win. What is more or less a natural evolution of LLMs... The thing is, where are my benefits as a developer? If for instance CoPilot charges 1 Premium request for Claude and 1 Premium request for GPT-5, despite that GPT-5 is (with resource usage), supposed to be on a level of GPT 4.1 (a free model). Then (from my point of view) there is no gain. So far from coding point of view, Claude does coding (often) still better. I made the comparison that Claude feels like a Senior dev, with years of experience, where GPT 5 feels like a academic professor, that is too focus on analytic presentation. So while its nice to see more competition in the market, i still rank (with Copilot): Claude > Gemini > GPT5 ... big gap ... GPT4.1 (beast mode) > GPT 4.1 LLM's are following the same progression these days like GPUs, or CPU ... Big jumps at first, then things slow down, you get more power efficiency but only marginal jumps on improvements. Where we will see benefits, is specialized LLMs, for instance, Anthropic doing a good job for creating a programmer focused LLM. But even those gates are starting to get challenged by Chinese (open source) models, step by step. GPT5 simply follows a trend. And within a few months, Anthropic will release something probably not much of a improvement over 4.0 but cheaper. Probably better with tool usage. And then comes GPT5.1, 6 months later, and ... GPT-5.0 in my opinion, for a company with the funding that openAI has, needed to be beat the competition with much more impact.
    - mind-blight 1y ago
      I'm not even considering the coding use case. It's been fine in cursor. I care about the days extraction and basic instruction following in my application - coding ability doesn't come into play. For example, I want the model to be able to take a basic rule and identify what subset of given text fits into the rule. (E.g. find and extract all last names) 4o and 4.1 we're decent, but still left a lot to be desired. o4-mini was pretty good at not ambiguous cases. Getting a model that runs cheaper and is better at following instructions makes my product better and more profitable with a could lines of code change. It's not emotionally revolutionary, but it hours a great sweet spot for a lot of business use cases
- pton_xd 1y ago
  > "look at this shitty game it made" This is basically every agentic coding demo I've seen to date. It's the future but man we're still years and years away.
theahura 1y ago
Tbh I picked possibly the least offensive definition for agi I could think of, since I mostly agree with other comments that it's entirely semantic. I've written in the past that I think we've already hit AGI for any reasonable definitions of "artificial", "general", and "intelligence"

rvnx 1y ago

We reached AGI about 30 years ago then

lol. The definition of AGI seems to change on the daily, and usually coincides with whatever the describer is trying to sell.

adeelk93 1y ago
I’d amend that to - it coincides with whatever the describer is trying to get funding for

lm28469 1y ago

That certainly how it feels to me. Every demo seems like it's presenting some kind of socially maladjusted silicon valley nerd's wet dream. Half of it doesn't interest non tech people, the other half seems designed for teenagers. Look at this image of Zuckerberg demoing his new product: https://imgur.com/1naGLfp https://imgur.com/1naGLfp Or gpt5 press release: "look at this shitty game it made", "look at the bars on this graph showing how we outperform some other model by 2% in a benchmark that doesn't actually represent anything"

mind-blight 1y ago
GPT-5 is a bit better -particularly around consistency - and a fair amount cheaper. For all of my use cases, that's a huge win. Products using AI powered days processing (a lot of what I use it for) don't need mind blowing new features. I just want it to be better at summarizing and instruction following, and I want it to be cheaper. GPT-5 seems to knock all of that out of the park
- benjiro 1y ago
  > GPT-5 is a bit better -particularly around consistency - and a fair amount cheaper. For all of my use cases, that's a huge win. What is more or less a natural evolution of LLMs... The thing is, where are my benefits as a developer? If for instance CoPilot charges 1 Premium request for Claude and 1 Premium request for GPT-5, despite that GPT-5 is (with resource usage), supposed to be on a level of GPT 4.1 (a free model). Then (from my point of view) there is no gain. So far from coding point of view, Claude does coding (often) still better. I made the comparison that Claude feels like a Senior dev, with years of experience, where GPT 5 feels like a academic professor, that is too focus on analytic presentation. So while its nice to see more competition in the market, i still rank (with Copilot): Claude > Gemini > GPT5 ... big gap ... GPT4.1 (beast mode) > GPT 4.1 LLM's are following the same progression these days like GPUs, or CPU ... Big jumps at first, then things slow down, you get more power efficiency but only marginal jumps on improvements. Where we will see benefits, is specialized LLMs, for instance, Anthropic doing a good job for creating a programmer focused LLM. But even those gates are starting to get challenged by Chinese (open source) models, step by step. GPT5 simply follows a trend. And within a few months, Anthropic will release something probably not much of a improvement over 4.0 but cheaper. Probably better with tool usage. And then comes GPT5.1, 6 months later, and ... GPT-5.0 in my opinion, for a company with the funding that openAI has, needed to be beat the competition with much more impact.
  - mind-blight 1y ago
    I'm not even considering the coding use case. It's been fine in cursor. I care about the days extraction and basic instruction following in my application - coding ability doesn't come into play. For example, I want the model to be able to take a basic rule and identify what subset of given text fits into the rule. (E.g. find and extract all last names) 4o and 4.1 we're decent, but still left a lot to be desired. o4-mini was pretty good at not ambiguous cases. Getting a model that runs cheaper and is better at following instructions makes my product better and more profitable with a could lines of code change. It's not emotionally revolutionary, but it hours a great sweet spot for a lot of business use cases
pton_xd 1y ago
> "look at this shitty game it made" This is basically every agentic coding demo I've seen to date. It's the future but man we're still years and years away.

theahura 1y ago

Tbh I picked possibly the least offensive definition for agi I could think of, since I mostly agree with other comments that it's entirely semantic. I've written in the past that I think we've already hit AGI for any reasonable definitions of "artificial", "general", and "intelligence"