4 ms·

> 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 a

> 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 18d ago
Completely arbitrary definition that nobody will agree on, stated as if it’s some self-evident ground truth.
- fc417fc802 18d 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 18d 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 18d 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 18d 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.
        cindyllm 18d ago
        [dead]

phoghed 18d ago

Completely arbitrary definition that nobody will agree on, stated as if it’s some self-evident ground truth.

fc417fc802 18d 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 18d 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 18d 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 18d 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.
      - cindyllm 18d ago
        [dead]