8 ms·

Anytime I see "Artificial General Intelligence," "AGI," "ASI," etc., I mentally replace it with "something no one has defined meaningfully." Or the long versio

Anytime I see "Artificial General Intelligence," "AGI," "ASI," etc., I mentally replace it with "something no one has defined meaningfully." Or the long version: "something about which no conclusions can be drawn because the proposed definitions lack sufficient precision and completeness." Or the short versions: "Skippetyboop," "plipnikop," and "zingybang."

logicchains 7mo ago
>Anytime I see "Artificial General Intelligence," "AGI," "ASI," etc., I mentally replace it with "something no one has defined meaningfully." There are lots of meaningful definitions, the people saying we haven't reached AGI just don't use them. For most of the last half-century people would have agreed that machines that can pass the Turing test and win Math Olympiad gold are AGI.
- tokai 7mo ago
  Turing test is generally misunderstood, much like Schrodinger's cat, it has devolved in to a pop cultural meme. The test is to evaluate if a machine can think. Not if it is intelligent, not if it is human-like. Its dismissed as a useful by most experts in philosophy of mind, AI, language, etc.. Thinking cool and all but not that extraordinary. Even plants does it.
  - namrog84 7mo ago
    I thought that was part of the issue, is the poor understanding of is the test to evaluate if it can think or only if we think it can think. And even that is generalizable since there are different categories of thinking or concepts of the mind.
  - runarberg 7mo ago
    I like the analogy with Schrödinger’s cat. Like Schrödinger’s cat it is actually not a good thought experiment. Both have been debunked. Schrödinger’s cat is applying quantum behavior (of a single interaction) to a macro system (with trillions of interactions). While the Turing test can be explained away with Searle’s Chinese room thought experiment. I would argue that Schrödinger’s cat has done more damage to the general understanding of quantum physics then it has done good. In contrary though, I don‘t think the same about the Turing test. I think it has resulted in a net positive for the theory of mind as long as people take Searle’s rebuttal into account. Without it (as is sadly common in popular philosophy) the Turing test is simply just wrong, and offers no good insight for neither philosophy nor science.
    - djoldman 7mo ago
      The Turing test and Searle's "rebuttal" are both pretty inconsequential. There's no real definition of "thinking," therefore neither proof/disprove or say much. Turing's imitation game is about making it difficult for a human to tell whether they are communicating with a computer or not. If a computer can trick the human, then... what? The computer is "thinking" ? I think most people would say that's an insufficient act to prove thinking. Even though no one has a rigorous definition of thinking either. All this stuff goes around in circles and like most philosophy makes little progress.
      - runarberg 7mo ago
        Searle’s rebuttal is actually excellent philosophy. But otherwise I agree. Searle was (just learned he passed away last year) a philosopher by trade, but Turing was a mathematician and Schrödinger was a theoretical physicist. So it is to be expected that a mathematician and a physicist might produce sub-par philosophy. Turing’s point in his 1950 paper was actually to provide a substitute to the question of whether machines could think. If a machine can win the imitation game, he argued, is a better question to ask rather then “can a machine think”. Searle showed that this is in fact this criteria was not a good one. But by 1980 philosophy of mind had advanced significantly, partially thanks to Turing’s contributions, particularly via cognitive science, but in the 1980s we also had neuropsychology, which kind of revolutionized this subfield of philosophy. I think philosophy is actually rather important when formulating questions like these, and even more so when evaluating the quality of the answers. That said, I am not the biggest fan of the state of mainstream philosophy in the 1940s. I kind of have a beef with logical positivism, and honestly believe that even Turing’s mediocre philosophy was on a much better track then what the biggest thinkers of the time were doing with their operational definition.
        Dylan16807 7mo ago
        Even if a Chinese room isn't a real boy, if it can do basically all text tasks at a human level I'm going to say it's capable of thinking. The issue of "understanding" can be left for another day (not that I think the Chinese room is very convincing on that front either). I see no reason to disqualify p-zombies from being AGI.
  - debugnik 7mo ago
    > The test is to evaluate if a machine can think. The test is to showcase that the question of whether machines can think is meaningless. The point of Turing's thesis is that passing his test just proves the machine has the capability to pass such a test, which is actually meaningful.
  - hunterpayne 7mo ago
    "Thinking cool and all but not that extraordinary. Even plants does it." Are you involved in politics somehow?
- sebastos 7mo ago
  Firstly, the models that pass the Math Olympiad aren’t the same models as the ones you’re saying “pass the Turing test”. Secondly, nothing actually passes the Turing test. They pass a vibes check of “hey that’s pretty good!” but if your life depended on it, you could easily find ways to sniff out an LLM agent. Thirdly, none of these models learn in real time, which is an obviously essential feature. We’ll know AGI when we see it, and this ain’t it. This complaining about changing goalposts is so transparently sour grapes from people over-invested in hyping the current LLM paradigm.
  - ufmace 7mo ago
    > nothing actually passes the Turing test Says who? I had already found this study, published almost a year ago, saying that they do: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674 https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674 There doesn't seem to be a super-rigorous definition of the Turing Test, but I don't think it's reasonable to require it to fool an expert whose life depends on the correct choice. It already seems to be decently able to fool a person of average intelligence who has a basic knowledge of LLMs. I agree that we don't really have AGI yet, but I'd hope we can come up with a better definition of what it is than "we'll know it when we see it". I think it is a legitimate point that we've moved the goalposts some.
    - edanm 7mo ago
      Turing gave a pretty rigorous definition of the Turing Test IMO. Well, as rigorous as something that is inherently "anecdotal" can be, which is part of the philosophical point of the Turing Test.
    - Copyrightest 7mo ago
      [dead]
    - runarberg 7mo ago
      First of. The Turing test has a rigorous definition. Secondly, it has been debunked for almost half a century at this point by Searle’s Chinese room thought experiment. Thirdly, intelligence it self is a scientifically fraught term with ever changing meaning as we discover more and more “intelligent” behavior in nature (by animals and plants, and more). And to make matters worse, general intelligence is even worse, as the term was used almost exclusively for racist pseudo-science, as a way to operationally define a metric which would prove white supremacy. Artificial General Intelligence will exist when the grifters who profit from it claim it exists. The meaning of it will shift to benefit certain entrepreneurs. It will never actually be a useful term in science nor philosophy.
- orbital-decay 7mo ago
  The most pragmatic definition I know is OpenAI's own: "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work". Which is still something between skippetyboop and zingybang, as it leaves a ton of room for OAI to decide if that moment is reached, and also economically valuable work is a moving target.
- b00ty4breakfast 7mo ago
  If fooling people and doing math good are the criteria, we've had AGI for longer than we've had the modern internet.
politelemon 7mo ago
The enskibidification of AI
- atomicnumber3 7mo ago
  Honestly, not enough of a joke. I was thinking something similar - this isn't AI, and none of "those people" care if it is or isn't. They don't care philosophically, or even pragmatically. They're selling a product. That product is the IDEA of replacement of the majority of human labor with what's basically slave labor but with substantially disregardable ethical quandaries. It's honestly a genius product. I'm not surprised it's selling so well. I'm vaguely surprised so many people who don't stand to benefit in any way shape or form, or who will even potentially starve if it works out, are so keen on it. But there are always bootlickers. The most unfortunate part is that when the party ends, it's none of "those people" who will suffer even in the slightest. I'm not even optimistic their egos will suffer, as Musk seems to show they are utterly immune even as their companies collapse under them.
  - ryandrake 7mo ago
    AI is already "an employee who can't say no to questionable assignments." We should all be reflective about the real value and inevitable consequences of this work.
    - hunterpayne 7mo ago
      There are also direct and very negative consequences we are having from AI right now. AI is the largest source of fake video propaganda and has largely destroyed the confidence people have in video evidence. I can imagine someone being held liable for these negative consequences, perhaps even extra-judicially.
  - palmotea 7mo ago
    > I'm vaguely surprised so many people who don't stand to benefit in any way shape or form, or who will even potentially starve if it works out, are so keen on it. But there are always bootlickers. I've been getting more and more disappointed by software engineers (in aggregate) as the years go by. They don't even have to be bootlickers to do what you describe, I think a lot of it is pride in their "intelligence," which they express by believing and regurgitating the propaganda they've consumed. They prove their smarts by (among other things) having opinions that align with a zeitgeist of some group of powerful elites. They're too-easily manipulated. And it's not just AI, it's also things like libertarianism. You've got workers identifying as capitalist tycoons, because they read a book and have some shares in a 401k.
shepherdjerred 7mo ago
They define AGI in their charter > artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work
- chrsw 7mo ago
  I take "outperform" to mean "can replace".
- djoldman 7mo ago
  That definition is as I said: "something about which no conclusions can be drawn because the proposed definitions lack sufficient precision and completeness." "Highly autonomous systems" and "most economically valuable work" aren't precise enough to be useful. "Highly" implies that there is a continuum, so where does directed end and autonomy begin? "Most economically valuable work"... each word in that has wiggle room, not to mention that any reasonable interpretation of it is a shifting goalpost as the work done by humans over history has shifted a great deal. The point is that none of this is defined in a way so that people can agree that something has AGI/ASI/etc. or not. If people can't agree then there's no point in talking about it. EDIT: interestingly, the OpenAI definition of AGI specifically means that a subset of humans do not have AGI.
  - nomel 7mo ago
    It's a definition based on practical results. That's a good definition, because it doesn't require we already know the exact implementation. It doesn't require guessing, in a literal "put your money where your mouth is" way. If it can do things as good as or better than humans, then either the AI has a type of general intelligence or the human does not. Defining capabilities based on outcome rather than implementation should be very familiar to an engineer, of any kind, because that's how every unsolved implementation must start.
    - irishcoffee 7mo ago
      Do you know how an LLM works? Can you describe it?
ozgung 7mo ago
That’s the problem with the discussions on AI. No one defines the terms they use. If we define AGI as an AI not doing a preset task but can be used for general purpose, then we already have that. If we define it as human level intelligence at _every_ task, then some humans fail to be an AGI. If we define AGI as a magic algorithm that does every task autonomously and successfully then that thing may not exist at all, even inside our brains. When the AGI term was first coined they probably meant something like HAL 9000. We have that now (and HAL gaining self-awareness or refusing commands are just for dramatic effect and not necessary). Goalposts are not stable in this game.
- VorpalWay 7mo ago
  It is not just AGI that is poorly defined. Plain AI is moving goalposts too. When the A* search algorithm was introduced in the late 60s, that was considered AI, when SVM (support vector machines) and KNN (K nearest neighbor) were new, they were AI. And so on. These days it is neural networks and transformer models for language in particular that people mean when they say unqualified AI. It is very hard to have a meaningful discussion when different parties mean different things with the same words.
  - Wowfunhappy 7mo ago
    I really wish I could wave a magic wand and make everyone stop using the term "AI". It means everything and nothing. Say "machine learning" if that's what you mean.
    - catlifeonmars 7mo ago
      To be pedantic, “machine learning” is even underspecified. It’s marginally better in that it sheds _most_ of the marketing baggage, but it still refers to a general concept that can mean may different things across different fields of study.
    - VorpalWay 7mo ago
      Machine learning: that definitely includes SVM and regression models. Oh and decision trees. Probably a few other things I'm not thinking of right now. Many people will unfortunately be thinking of just neural networks though. (By the way, if something like a regression model or decision tree can solve your problem, you should prefer those. Much cheaper to train and to run inference with those than with neural networks. Much cheaper than deep neural networks especially.)
random3 7mo ago
I call these "romantic definitions" or "gesticulations". For private use (personal or even internal to teams) they can be great placeholders, assuming the goal is to refine vocabulary.
TacticalCoder 7mo ago
That's no argument: the exact same can be said for what "AI" is: "Skippetyboop," "plipnikop," and "zingybang.".
- djoldman 7mo ago
  > the exact same can be said for what "AI" is: "Skippetyboop," "plipnikop," and "zingybang.". Yes.
chrysoprace 7mo ago
I've largely avoided using the term "AI" to refer to the current LLM and generative technology because it's loaded with too much ambiguity and glosses over the problems with those technologies in the context of conversations around it.
- xyzal 7mo ago
  "applied statistics"
- datsci_est_2015 7mo ago
  Same, but I have used the term “generative AI” to describe generative models. Never the naked “AI” though (except in conversations with friends where the difference is pedantic because they’re not subject matter experts).
- parliament32 7mo ago
  "AI" implies intelligence, which is nowhere to be found. "Text generators" is the best descriptive term.
wise_blood 7mo ago
the ARC definition is the one I like the best, something like: "it is AGI when we can no longer come up with tasks easy for humans to solve but hard for computers"
- DiscourseFan 7mo ago
  We are very very far from that point
  - wise_blood 7mo ago
    If we include tasks in the physical world, yes we are. for abstract tasks (like ARC-AGI), who knows?
    - DiscourseFan 7mo ago
      We are far from that point for abstract tasks
erichocean 7mo ago
> "something about which no conclusions can be drawn because the proposed definitions lack sufficient precision and completeness." The same problem exists defining human intelligence, it's a problem with "intelligence" in general, artificial or not.

logicchains 7mo ago

>Anytime I see "Artificial General Intelligence," "AGI," "ASI," etc., I mentally replace it with "something no one has defined meaningfully." There are lots of meaningful definitions, the people saying we haven't reached AGI just don't use them. For most of the last half-century people would have agreed that machines that can pass the Turing test and win Math Olympiad gold are AGI.

tokai 7mo ago
Turing test is generally misunderstood, much like Schrodinger's cat, it has devolved in to a pop cultural meme. The test is to evaluate if a machine can think. Not if it is intelligent, not if it is human-like. Its dismissed as a useful by most experts in philosophy of mind, AI, language, etc.. Thinking cool and all but not that extraordinary. Even plants does it.
- namrog84 7mo ago
  I thought that was part of the issue, is the poor understanding of is the test to evaluate if it can think or only if we think it can think. And even that is generalizable since there are different categories of thinking or concepts of the mind.
- runarberg 7mo ago
  I like the analogy with Schrödinger’s cat. Like Schrödinger’s cat it is actually not a good thought experiment. Both have been debunked. Schrödinger’s cat is applying quantum behavior (of a single interaction) to a macro system (with trillions of interactions). While the Turing test can be explained away with Searle’s Chinese room thought experiment. I would argue that Schrödinger’s cat has done more damage to the general understanding of quantum physics then it has done good. In contrary though, I don‘t think the same about the Turing test. I think it has resulted in a net positive for the theory of mind as long as people take Searle’s rebuttal into account. Without it (as is sadly common in popular philosophy) the Turing test is simply just wrong, and offers no good insight for neither philosophy nor science.
  - djoldman 7mo ago
    The Turing test and Searle's "rebuttal" are both pretty inconsequential. There's no real definition of "thinking," therefore neither proof/disprove or say much. Turing's imitation game is about making it difficult for a human to tell whether they are communicating with a computer or not. If a computer can trick the human, then... what? The computer is "thinking" ? I think most people would say that's an insufficient act to prove thinking. Even though no one has a rigorous definition of thinking either. All this stuff goes around in circles and like most philosophy makes little progress.
    - runarberg 7mo ago
      Searle’s rebuttal is actually excellent philosophy. But otherwise I agree. Searle was (just learned he passed away last year) a philosopher by trade, but Turing was a mathematician and Schrödinger was a theoretical physicist. So it is to be expected that a mathematician and a physicist might produce sub-par philosophy. Turing’s point in his 1950 paper was actually to provide a substitute to the question of whether machines could think. If a machine can win the imitation game, he argued, is a better question to ask rather then “can a machine think”. Searle showed that this is in fact this criteria was not a good one. But by 1980 philosophy of mind had advanced significantly, partially thanks to Turing’s contributions, particularly via cognitive science, but in the 1980s we also had neuropsychology, which kind of revolutionized this subfield of philosophy. I think philosophy is actually rather important when formulating questions like these, and even more so when evaluating the quality of the answers. That said, I am not the biggest fan of the state of mainstream philosophy in the 1940s. I kind of have a beef with logical positivism, and honestly believe that even Turing’s mediocre philosophy was on a much better track then what the biggest thinkers of the time were doing with their operational definition.
      - Dylan16807 7mo ago
        Even if a Chinese room isn't a real boy, if it can do basically all text tasks at a human level I'm going to say it's capable of thinking. The issue of "understanding" can be left for another day (not that I think the Chinese room is very convincing on that front either). I see no reason to disqualify p-zombies from being AGI.
- debugnik 7mo ago
  > The test is to evaluate if a machine can think. The test is to showcase that the question of whether machines can think is meaningless. The point of Turing's thesis is that passing his test just proves the machine has the capability to pass such a test, which is actually meaningful.
- hunterpayne 7mo ago
  "Thinking cool and all but not that extraordinary. Even plants does it." Are you involved in politics somehow?
sebastos 7mo ago
Firstly, the models that pass the Math Olympiad aren’t the same models as the ones you’re saying “pass the Turing test”. Secondly, nothing actually passes the Turing test. They pass a vibes check of “hey that’s pretty good!” but if your life depended on it, you could easily find ways to sniff out an LLM agent. Thirdly, none of these models learn in real time, which is an obviously essential feature. We’ll know AGI when we see it, and this ain’t it. This complaining about changing goalposts is so transparently sour grapes from people over-invested in hyping the current LLM paradigm.
- ufmace 7mo ago
  > nothing actually passes the Turing test Says who? I had already found this study, published almost a year ago, saying that they do: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674 https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674 There doesn't seem to be a super-rigorous definition of the Turing Test, but I don't think it's reasonable to require it to fool an expert whose life depends on the correct choice. It already seems to be decently able to fool a person of average intelligence who has a basic knowledge of LLMs. I agree that we don't really have AGI yet, but I'd hope we can come up with a better definition of what it is than "we'll know it when we see it". I think it is a legitimate point that we've moved the goalposts some.
  - edanm 7mo ago
    Turing gave a pretty rigorous definition of the Turing Test IMO. Well, as rigorous as something that is inherently "anecdotal" can be, which is part of the philosophical point of the Turing Test.
  - Copyrightest 7mo ago
    [dead]
  - runarberg 7mo ago
    First of. The Turing test has a rigorous definition. Secondly, it has been debunked for almost half a century at this point by Searle’s Chinese room thought experiment. Thirdly, intelligence it self is a scientifically fraught term with ever changing meaning as we discover more and more “intelligent” behavior in nature (by animals and plants, and more). And to make matters worse, general intelligence is even worse, as the term was used almost exclusively for racist pseudo-science, as a way to operationally define a metric which would prove white supremacy. Artificial General Intelligence will exist when the grifters who profit from it claim it exists. The meaning of it will shift to benefit certain entrepreneurs. It will never actually be a useful term in science nor philosophy.
orbital-decay 7mo ago
The most pragmatic definition I know is OpenAI's own: "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work". Which is still something between skippetyboop and zingybang, as it leaves a ton of room for OAI to decide if that moment is reached, and also economically valuable work is a moving target.
b00ty4breakfast 7mo ago
If fooling people and doing math good are the criteria, we've had AGI for longer than we've had the modern internet.

politelemon 7mo ago

The enskibidification of AI

atomicnumber3 7mo ago
Honestly, not enough of a joke. I was thinking something similar - this isn't AI, and none of "those people" care if it is or isn't. They don't care philosophically, or even pragmatically. They're selling a product. That product is the IDEA of replacement of the majority of human labor with what's basically slave labor but with substantially disregardable ethical quandaries. It's honestly a genius product. I'm not surprised it's selling so well. I'm vaguely surprised so many people who don't stand to benefit in any way shape or form, or who will even potentially starve if it works out, are so keen on it. But there are always bootlickers. The most unfortunate part is that when the party ends, it's none of "those people" who will suffer even in the slightest. I'm not even optimistic their egos will suffer, as Musk seems to show they are utterly immune even as their companies collapse under them.
- ryandrake 7mo ago
  AI is already "an employee who can't say no to questionable assignments." We should all be reflective about the real value and inevitable consequences of this work.
  - hunterpayne 7mo ago
    There are also direct and very negative consequences we are having from AI right now. AI is the largest source of fake video propaganda and has largely destroyed the confidence people have in video evidence. I can imagine someone being held liable for these negative consequences, perhaps even extra-judicially.
- palmotea 7mo ago
  > I'm vaguely surprised so many people who don't stand to benefit in any way shape or form, or who will even potentially starve if it works out, are so keen on it. But there are always bootlickers. I've been getting more and more disappointed by software engineers (in aggregate) as the years go by. They don't even have to be bootlickers to do what you describe, I think a lot of it is pride in their "intelligence," which they express by believing and regurgitating the propaganda they've consumed. They prove their smarts by (among other things) having opinions that align with a zeitgeist of some group of powerful elites. They're too-easily manipulated. And it's not just AI, it's also things like libertarianism. You've got workers identifying as capitalist tycoons, because they read a book and have some shares in a 401k.

shepherdjerred 7mo ago

They define AGI in their charter > artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work

chrsw 7mo ago
I take "outperform" to mean "can replace".
djoldman 7mo ago
That definition is as I said: "something about which no conclusions can be drawn because the proposed definitions lack sufficient precision and completeness." "Highly autonomous systems" and "most economically valuable work" aren't precise enough to be useful. "Highly" implies that there is a continuum, so where does directed end and autonomy begin? "Most economically valuable work"... each word in that has wiggle room, not to mention that any reasonable interpretation of it is a shifting goalpost as the work done by humans over history has shifted a great deal. The point is that none of this is defined in a way so that people can agree that something has AGI/ASI/etc. or not. If people can't agree then there's no point in talking about it. EDIT: interestingly, the OpenAI definition of AGI specifically means that a subset of humans do not have AGI.
- nomel 7mo ago
  It's a definition based on practical results. That's a good definition, because it doesn't require we already know the exact implementation. It doesn't require guessing, in a literal "put your money where your mouth is" way. If it can do things as good as or better than humans, then either the AI has a type of general intelligence or the human does not. Defining capabilities based on outcome rather than implementation should be very familiar to an engineer, of any kind, because that's how every unsolved implementation must start.
  - irishcoffee 7mo ago
    Do you know how an LLM works? Can you describe it?

ozgung 7mo ago

That’s the problem with the discussions on AI. No one defines the terms they use. If we define AGI as an AI not doing a preset task but can be used for general purpose, then we already have that. If we define it as human level intelligence at _every_ task, then some humans fail to be an AGI. If we define AGI as a magic algorithm that does every task autonomously and successfully then that thing may not exist at all, even inside our brains. When the AGI term was first coined they probably meant something like HAL 9000. We have that now (and HAL gaining self-awareness or refusing commands are just for dramatic effect and not necessary). Goalposts are not stable in this game.

VorpalWay 7mo ago
It is not just AGI that is poorly defined. Plain AI is moving goalposts too. When the A* search algorithm was introduced in the late 60s, that was considered AI, when SVM (support vector machines) and KNN (K nearest neighbor) were new, they were AI. And so on. These days it is neural networks and transformer models for language in particular that people mean when they say unqualified AI. It is very hard to have a meaningful discussion when different parties mean different things with the same words.
- Wowfunhappy 7mo ago
  I really wish I could wave a magic wand and make everyone stop using the term "AI". It means everything and nothing. Say "machine learning" if that's what you mean.
  - catlifeonmars 7mo ago
    To be pedantic, “machine learning” is even underspecified. It’s marginally better in that it sheds _most_ of the marketing baggage, but it still refers to a general concept that can mean may different things across different fields of study.
  - VorpalWay 7mo ago
    Machine learning: that definitely includes SVM and regression models. Oh and decision trees. Probably a few other things I'm not thinking of right now. Many people will unfortunately be thinking of just neural networks though. (By the way, if something like a regression model or decision tree can solve your problem, you should prefer those. Much cheaper to train and to run inference with those than with neural networks. Much cheaper than deep neural networks especially.)

random3 7mo ago

I call these "romantic definitions" or "gesticulations". For private use (personal or even internal to teams) they can be great placeholders, assuming the goal is to refine vocabulary.

TacticalCoder 7mo ago

That's no argument: the exact same can be said for what "AI" is: "Skippetyboop," "plipnikop," and "zingybang.".

djoldman 7mo ago
> the exact same can be said for what "AI" is: "Skippetyboop," "plipnikop," and "zingybang.". Yes.

chrysoprace 7mo ago

I've largely avoided using the term "AI" to refer to the current LLM and generative technology because it's loaded with too much ambiguity and glosses over the problems with those technologies in the context of conversations around it.

xyzal 7mo ago
"applied statistics"
datsci_est_2015 7mo ago
Same, but I have used the term “generative AI” to describe generative models. Never the naked “AI” though (except in conversations with friends where the difference is pedantic because they’re not subject matter experts).
parliament32 7mo ago
"AI" implies intelligence, which is nowhere to be found. "Text generators" is the best descriptive term.

wise_blood 7mo ago

the ARC definition is the one I like the best, something like: "it is AGI when we can no longer come up with tasks easy for humans to solve but hard for computers"

DiscourseFan 7mo ago
We are very very far from that point
- wise_blood 7mo ago
  If we include tasks in the physical world, yes we are. for abstract tasks (like ARC-AGI), who knows?
  - DiscourseFan 7mo ago
    We are far from that point for abstract tasks

erichocean 7mo ago

> "something about which no conclusions can be drawn because the proposed definitions lack sufficient precision and completeness." The same problem exists defining human intelligence, it's a problem with "intelligence" in general, artificial or not.