3 ms·

This is taking Sam Altmans PR statements as proof of AGI? Even the quote they used questions the premise of the article > “We basically have built AGI” (later

by dmix 8mo ago

This is taking Sam Altmans PR statements as proof of AGI? Even the quote they used questions the premise of the article > “We basically have built AGI” (later: “a spiritual statement, not a literal one”)

wongarsu 8mo ago
AGI is so nebulous we will never be able to tell if we hit it. We have hit human-level abilities in some narrow tasks, and are still leagues away in others. And humans have so vastly different skill-levels that we can't even agree what human-level really means. As bad as the economic definition of AGI in OpenAI's Microsoft deal is, at least it's measurable. Imho that's a big part of why people are shifting to ASI. Not because we reached AGI, but because 'we reached ASI' is a well-defined verifiable statement, where 'we reached AGI' just isn't
- sebastiennight 8mo ago
  > 'we reached ASI' is a well-defined verifiable statement, where 'we reached AGI' just isn't So... we can't tell when the rocket has left Earth atmosphere, but we can tell when the rocket has entered space? I'm not getting how "superior in all tasks" is better-defined for you than "equal in all tasks".
  - wongarsu 8mo ago
    Because ASI is 'superior to the best human' while AGI is 'matches or surpasses humans'. It's hard to agree on what 'matches humans' actually means. Would matching humans in coding involve the level of the average human (basically no coding ability), the level of a junior (the largest group of professionals), a senior ('someone competent') or of the best human we can find? Or as the scene from 'I, Robot' goes: Will Smith asks the android: 'Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a blank canvas into a masterpiece?' and the android simply answers 'Can you?' ASI sidesteps that completely
    - hackable_sand 8mo ago
      Okay so we will never reach ASI, or we already have it? Pick one.
- hirvi74 8mo ago
  > AGI is so nebulous we will never be able to tell if we hit it. I completely agree. We can't even measure each other well, let alone machines.
  - Jensson 8mo ago
    It is very easy to tell if we still need humans in the loop. We still do so its not AGI.
    - wongarsu 8mo ago
      For certain types of "human in the loop". If it can't write working code without a human in the loop then it's not AGI. But a human-level coder also has lots of humans in the loop: a more senior developer doing code review, several layers of management, a product owner that interfaces the project with outside reality, sales people, etc. Now I already hear you typing "but those roles should also be handles by AI if it's AGI" and I agree that an AI that can claim to be AGI should be able to handle those roles (as separate agents if necessary). But in a real setup it probably won't be the best choice to do those roles for cultural and legal reasons. Or it might simply not be cost effective. Not to mention that under most definitions of AGI there can still be humans more capable than the AI, as long as the AI hits the 50th percentile mark or something like that. So even if it's an AGI with the ability to do these roles we will still have humans in the loop for a long long time
      - Jensson 8mo ago
        > Now I already hear you typing "but those roles should also be handles by AI if it's AGI" and I agree that an AI that can claim to be AGI should be able to handle those roles (as separate agents if necessary). But in a real setup it probably won't be the best choice to do those roles for cultural and legal reasons. But today you can't do those with AI, meaning the AI isn't AGI. I agree we will probably have humans in the loop here and there even after we achieve AGI for various reasons, but today you need to have humans in the loop it isn't an option not to.
      - deleted 8mo ago
- eloisant 8mo ago
  I feel like AI is actually helping us getting a better understanding of what "human intelligence" really is. I remember when computers became better than humans at chess, many people were shocked and saw that as machines becoming more intelligent than humans. Because being good at chess what considered equivalent to "being smart".

by dmix 8mo ago

wongarsu 8mo ago

AGI is so nebulous we will never be able to tell if we hit it. We have hit human-level abilities in some narrow tasks, and are still leagues away in others. And humans have so vastly different skill-levels that we can't even agree what human-level really means. As bad as the economic definition of AGI in OpenAI's Microsoft deal is, at least it's measurable. Imho that's a big part of why people are shifting to ASI. Not because we reached AGI, but because 'we reached ASI' is a well-defined verifiable statement, where 'we reached AGI' just isn't

sebastiennight 8mo ago
> 'we reached ASI' is a well-defined verifiable statement, where 'we reached AGI' just isn't So... we can't tell when the rocket has left Earth atmosphere, but we can tell when the rocket has entered space? I'm not getting how "superior in all tasks" is better-defined for you than "equal in all tasks".
- wongarsu 8mo ago
  Because ASI is 'superior to the best human' while AGI is 'matches or surpasses humans'. It's hard to agree on what 'matches humans' actually means. Would matching humans in coding involve the level of the average human (basically no coding ability), the level of a junior (the largest group of professionals), a senior ('someone competent') or of the best human we can find? Or as the scene from 'I, Robot' goes: Will Smith asks the android: 'Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a blank canvas into a masterpiece?' and the android simply answers 'Can you?' ASI sidesteps that completely
  - hackable_sand 8mo ago
    Okay so we will never reach ASI, or we already have it? Pick one.
hirvi74 8mo ago
> AGI is so nebulous we will never be able to tell if we hit it. I completely agree. We can't even measure each other well, let alone machines.
- Jensson 8mo ago
  It is very easy to tell if we still need humans in the loop. We still do so its not AGI.
  - wongarsu 8mo ago
    For certain types of "human in the loop". If it can't write working code without a human in the loop then it's not AGI. But a human-level coder also has lots of humans in the loop: a more senior developer doing code review, several layers of management, a product owner that interfaces the project with outside reality, sales people, etc. Now I already hear you typing "but those roles should also be handles by AI if it's AGI" and I agree that an AI that can claim to be AGI should be able to handle those roles (as separate agents if necessary). But in a real setup it probably won't be the best choice to do those roles for cultural and legal reasons. Or it might simply not be cost effective. Not to mention that under most definitions of AGI there can still be humans more capable than the AI, as long as the AI hits the 50th percentile mark or something like that. So even if it's an AGI with the ability to do these roles we will still have humans in the loop for a long long time
    - Jensson 8mo ago
      > Now I already hear you typing "but those roles should also be handles by AI if it's AGI" and I agree that an AI that can claim to be AGI should be able to handle those roles (as separate agents if necessary). But in a real setup it probably won't be the best choice to do those roles for cultural and legal reasons. But today you can't do those with AI, meaning the AI isn't AGI. I agree we will probably have humans in the loop here and there even after we achieve AGI for various reasons, but today you need to have humans in the loop it isn't an option not to.
    - deleted 8mo ago
eloisant 8mo ago
I feel like AI is actually helping us getting a better understanding of what "human intelligence" really is. I remember when computers became better than humans at chess, many people were shocked and saw that as machines becoming more intelligent than humans. Because being good at chess what considered equivalent to "being smart".