4 ms·

Is there actually an agreed definition of AGI? It's always seemed like a marketing term that can mean whatever next quarters earnings need it to mean.

b112 27d ago
We had to use AGI, because the old 'AI' term, which used to mean AGI, was taken over by narrower definitions, and marketing nuttery. So now we'll need a new acronym.
mdp2021 27d ago
They use it like a marketing term, but it is unnecessary. I am not aware of a complete operational definition, but it would not be that difficult to build a good tentative one. I have mentioned many different requirements several times. One non-abstract definition is in the "10 points" here: https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/where-will-ai-be-at-the-end-of-2027?r=8tdk6&utm_medium=ios https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/where-will-ai-be-at-the-en... Edit: "definition" (the 10 points above) that is cannot be that of "AGI", really. AGI just needs to actually implement Intelligence and requires very many features that are not there today. The list from Marcus is about "Artificial Super General Intelligence" - not the same thing. You can implement a replacement for Intellligence - that is AI; you can implement Intelligence - that is AGI; you can implement Intelligence of very high value output: that is "ASGI" (or similar).
- dinfinity 27d ago
  From the 10 tasks of Gary Marcus' list: "With little or no human involvement, come up with paradigm-shifting, Nobel-caliber scientific discoveries." Indeed far above the capabilities of almost all humans. I agree we should have a separate category for this. "ASGI" is still a bit unintuitive, imho. Maybe Artificial Excellent Intelligence. With AGI explicitly meaning matching average humans, I would say that we really have already reached AGI. I can't think of any intelligence-only task where I'd think an average human would do significantly better than frontier AI provided with correct context.
  - mdp2021 27d ago
    > "ASGI" is still a bit unintuitive It seems that "ASI" ("Artificial Super Intelligence") is in use, maybe it will get further traction. It should imply AGI. > AGI ... matching average humans Very bad definition. AGI has to implement Intelligence. And to be Intelligent it has to contain the missing pieces. Intelligence is not there - the implementation is unfinished.
    - dinfinity 27d ago
      > It seems that "ASI" ("Artificial Super Intelligence") is in use, maybe it will get further traction. It should imply AGI. That's why I suggested AEI. > Very bad definition. AGI has to implement Intelligence. And to be Intelligent it has to contain the missing pieces. Are you saying that the average human is missing pieces and thus can't be considered intelligent?
      - mdp2021 27d ago
        > the average human is missing pieces No, I was saying that current technologies with emergent simil-intelligent behaviour miss properties that are necessary to have proper Intelligence. The average human does have atrophied abilities, compared of course to proficient humans. And in fact, we certainly do not aim to simulate average humans. We aim to simulate or actually implement Intelligence.
        dinfinity 27d ago
        I see. For which intelligence only tasks do you think an average human performs better than current frontier AI (if any)?
        mdp2021 26d ago
        ??? This question makes no sense. We utterly disregard the "average human". There is no comparison (no competition) between the "average human" and an accomplished human. This makes using it as a parameter nonsensical.
grebc 27d ago
AGI: Equity Go Up

b112 27d ago

We had to use AGI, because the old 'AI' term, which used to mean AGI, was taken over by narrower definitions, and marketing nuttery. So now we'll need a new acronym.

mdp2021 27d ago

They use it like a marketing term, but it is unnecessary. I am not aware of a complete operational definition, but it would not be that difficult to build a good tentative one. I have mentioned many different requirements several times. One non-abstract definition is in the "10 points" here: https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/where-will-ai-be-at-the-end-of-2027?r=8tdk6&utm_medium=ios https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/where-will-ai-be-at-the-en... Edit: "definition" (the 10 points above) that is cannot be that of "AGI", really. AGI just needs to actually implement Intelligence and requires very many features that are not there today. The list from Marcus is about "Artificial Super General Intelligence" - not the same thing. You can implement a replacement for Intellligence - that is AI; you can implement Intelligence - that is AGI; you can implement Intelligence of very high value output: that is "ASGI" (or similar).

dinfinity 27d ago
From the 10 tasks of Gary Marcus' list: "With little or no human involvement, come up with paradigm-shifting, Nobel-caliber scientific discoveries." Indeed far above the capabilities of almost all humans. I agree we should have a separate category for this. "ASGI" is still a bit unintuitive, imho. Maybe Artificial Excellent Intelligence. With AGI explicitly meaning matching average humans, I would say that we really have already reached AGI. I can't think of any intelligence-only task where I'd think an average human would do significantly better than frontier AI provided with correct context.
- mdp2021 27d ago
  > "ASGI" is still a bit unintuitive It seems that "ASI" ("Artificial Super Intelligence") is in use, maybe it will get further traction. It should imply AGI. > AGI ... matching average humans Very bad definition. AGI has to implement Intelligence. And to be Intelligent it has to contain the missing pieces. Intelligence is not there - the implementation is unfinished.
  - dinfinity 27d ago
    > It seems that "ASI" ("Artificial Super Intelligence") is in use, maybe it will get further traction. It should imply AGI. That's why I suggested AEI. > Very bad definition. AGI has to implement Intelligence. And to be Intelligent it has to contain the missing pieces. Are you saying that the average human is missing pieces and thus can't be considered intelligent?
    - mdp2021 27d ago
      > the average human is missing pieces No, I was saying that current technologies with emergent simil-intelligent behaviour miss properties that are necessary to have proper Intelligence. The average human does have atrophied abilities, compared of course to proficient humans. And in fact, we certainly do not aim to simulate average humans. We aim to simulate or actually implement Intelligence.
      - dinfinity 27d ago
        I see. For which intelligence only tasks do you think an average human performs better than current frontier AI (if any)?
        mdp2021 26d ago
        ??? This question makes no sense. We utterly disregard the "average human". There is no comparison (no competition) between the "average human" and an accomplished human. This makes using it as a parameter nonsensical.

grebc 27d ago

AGI: Equity Go Up