3 ms·
Sam is wrong here, AGI has never had a clear definition, this there's no "we have" or "we haven't". I'd say most agree we're still a ways off.
by junon 11mo ago
Sam is wrong here, AGI has never had a clear definition, this there's no "we have" or "we haven't". I'd say most agree we're still a ways off.
- techblueberry 11mo agoI mean 20 years ago it was intelligence that could be used in multiple domains; the ability to reason in natural language. Which is what we have? Really, beyond this fantastical; AGI is when we have luxury automated space communism, I sort of legitimately don’t understand why ChatGPT 5 isn’t AGI. (Other than the fact that it would be super disappointing, which is maybe my point) Maybe it’s AGIv1? Maybe it’s AGI with an IQ of 47? But it’s super bipolar since it can also talk like someone with an IQ of 150x
- acdha 11mo agoLack of reasoning or true understanding. It’s not just that it’s like IQ 47 but that it’s unreliable and inconsistent so you can’t safely deploy it in adversarial contexts.
- techblueberry 11mo agoHumans with true intelligence are unreliable and inconsistent, why would AGI be different?
- acdha 11mo agoAGI wouldn’t be, LLMs are because they’re still far from that level.
- loeg 11mo ago20 years ago, sub-human levels were extremely optimistic. The context has changed.