3 ms·

They’ll never be AGI simply because the definition will be constantly updated to be some steps ahead of them.

by phoghed 16d ago

fc417fc802 15d ago
I'm pretty sure "competent at chess without external aids" has been on the standard AGI checklist since before personal computers were a thing. How can you claim an intelligence is general if it can't make sense of such a highly constrained board game? This is solidly table stakes.
- phoghed 15d ago
  Because they’ll train it to be good at chess and then everyone will say yeah but playing chess doesn’t mean you’re AGI, it can’t even ____ It can’t even count the R’s in strawberry It can’t even add numbers It can’t even solve a millennium puzzle It’s not even a chess GM It’s not even beyond human capability in Go It can’t even drive a car It can’t even self replicate It can’t even build weapons It doesn’t even have feelings So how could someone conceivably convince everyone that some system is AGI when there are still tasks that some human or group of humans can do that the system cannot? This will only happen, in my opinion, when the model/system can self-improve at a rate that scares people.
  - fc417fc802 15d ago
    > and then everyone will say yeah but playing chess doesn’t mean you’re AGI, it can’t even One, you're not addressing what I wrote above and two, yes, that's absolutely correct. Doing X doesn't qualify something as AGI. If you can't X you can't be AGI. The inverse doesn't hold though. Notably, if you have to retrain the model in order to X then it can't possibly be AGI since if it were _general_ it would be capable of figuring X out on its own having never seen it before.
    - phoghed 15d ago
      Completely arbitrary definition that nobody will agree on, stated as if it’s some self-evident ground truth.
      - fc417fc802 15d ago
        Yes, it is indeed self evident. If it can't figure things out then its intelligence isn't general in which case it can't be AGI by definition.
        phoghed 15d ago
        No, because there is no coherent, agreed-upon definition. There’s just a million people vibe defining it. Even if they solve 99% of whatever problems LLMs have, the 1% will remain the goal post, forever. Until you get RFC-whatever from some standards body that defines what an AGI system is, it’s pointless to argue about whether something fits your own personal definition or not. And for what it’s worth I just watched GitHub Copilot figure something out. So your definition is once again lacking.
        fc417fc802 15d ago
        Throughout this exchange you're repeatedly confusing the negative and the positive. I agree with you that there is no rigorous and universally agreed upon criteria for exactly what would constitute AGI (ie the positive). There are some vague shapes that are widely (but not universally) accepted such as largely (vague boundary) being capable of replacing (vague criteria) humans. However there are plenty of disqualifiers that are more or less universally accepted (ie the negative). In the above case it is literally by definition. Something cannot be termed general if it is incapable of generalizing. Appealing to a standards body won't do you any good here. Those are composed of people. They exist to facilitate wide scale coordination. Their documents aren't always widely accepted. They aren't the arbiters of truth.
        phoghed 15d ago
        > However there are plenty of disqualifiers that are more or less universally accepted (ie the negative) Which is exactly the point I’ve made repeatedly, there will always be something that they cannot do, and thus there will never be AGI. There will always be a long tail of capabilities that whatever system is created doesn’t have, and a long line of social media commenters eager to list them. An AI controlled robot will be standing over the cooling corpse of the last human who will die certain that it wasn’t done by AGI.

They’ll never be AGI simply because the definition will be constantly updated to be some steps ahead of them.

by phoghed 16d ago

They’ll never be AGI simply because the definition will be constantly updated to be some steps ahead of them.

I'm pretty sure "competent at chess without external aids" has been on the standard AGI checklist since before personal computers were a thing. How can you claim an intelligence is general if it can't make sense of such a highly constrained board game? This is solidly table stakes.

phoghed 15d ago
Because they’ll train it to be good at chess and then everyone will say yeah but playing chess doesn’t mean you’re AGI, it can’t even ____ It can’t even count the R’s in strawberry It can’t even add numbers It can’t even solve a millennium puzzle It’s not even a chess GM It’s not even beyond human capability in Go It can’t even drive a car It can’t even self replicate It can’t even build weapons It doesn’t even have feelings So how could someone conceivably convince everyone that some system is AGI when there are still tasks that some human or group of humans can do that the system cannot? This will only happen, in my opinion, when the model/system can self-improve at a rate that scares people.
- fc417fc802 15d ago
  > and then everyone will say yeah but playing chess doesn’t mean you’re AGI, it can’t even One, you're not addressing what I wrote above and two, yes, that's absolutely correct. Doing X doesn't qualify something as AGI. If you can't X you can't be AGI. The inverse doesn't hold though. Notably, if you have to retrain the model in order to X then it can't possibly be AGI since if it were _general_ it would be capable of figuring X out on its own having never seen it before.
  - phoghed 15d ago
    Completely arbitrary definition that nobody will agree on, stated as if it’s some self-evident ground truth.
    - fc417fc802 15d ago
      Yes, it is indeed self evident. If it can't figure things out then its intelligence isn't general in which case it can't be AGI by definition.
      - phoghed 15d ago
        No, because there is no coherent, agreed-upon definition. There’s just a million people vibe defining it. Even if they solve 99% of whatever problems LLMs have, the 1% will remain the goal post, forever. Until you get RFC-whatever from some standards body that defines what an AGI system is, it’s pointless to argue about whether something fits your own personal definition or not. And for what it’s worth I just watched GitHub Copilot figure something out. So your definition is once again lacking.
        fc417fc802 15d ago
        Throughout this exchange you're repeatedly confusing the negative and the positive. I agree with you that there is no rigorous and universally agreed upon criteria for exactly what would constitute AGI (ie the positive). There are some vague shapes that are widely (but not universally) accepted such as largely (vague boundary) being capable of replacing (vague criteria) humans. However there are plenty of disqualifiers that are more or less universally accepted (ie the negative). In the above case it is literally by definition. Something cannot be termed general if it is incapable of generalizing. Appealing to a standards body won't do you any good here. Those are composed of people. They exist to facilitate wide scale coordination. Their documents aren't always widely accepted. They aren't the arbiters of truth.
        phoghed 15d ago
        > However there are plenty of disqualifiers that are more or less universally accepted (ie the negative) Which is exactly the point I’ve made repeatedly, there will always be something that they cannot do, and thus there will never be AGI. There will always be a long tail of capabilities that whatever system is created doesn’t have, and a long line of social media commenters eager to list them. An AI controlled robot will be standing over the cooling corpse of the last human who will die certain that it wasn’t done by AGI.