LLMs will not give us "artificial general intelligence", whatever that means.
It’s vagueness is intentional and allows you to ignore the blind truth and fill in the gaps yourself. You just have to believe it’s right around the corner.
That doesn’t seem accurate, even if you limit it to mental tasks. For example, do we expect an AGI to be able to meditate, or to mentally introspect itself like a human, or to describe its inner qualia, in order to constitute an AGI?
Another thought: The way human perform tasks is affected by involuntary aspects of the respective individual mind, in a way that the involuntariness is relevant (for example being repulsed by something, or something not crossing one’s mind). If it is involuntary for the AGI as well, then it can’t perform tasks in all the different ways that different humans would. And if it isn’t involuntary for the AGI, can it really reproduce the way (all the ways) individual humans would perform a task? To put it more concretely: For every individual, there is probably a task that they can’t perform (with a specific outcome) that however another individual can perform. If the same is true for an AGI, then by your definition it isn’t an AGI because it can’t perform all tasks. On the other hand, if we assume it can perform all tasks, then it would be unlike any individual human, which raises the question of whether this is (a) possible, and (b) conceptually coherent to begin with.
...Yes. This is what I think 'most' people consider a real AI to be.
Moreso, I see an AI that can do any (intelligence) task a human can will be far beyond human capabilities because even individual humans can't do everything.
How would you know if it could? How do you know that other human beings can? You don’t.
Do you mind sharing the kinds of descriptive criteria for these behaviors that you are envisioning for which there is overlap with the general assumption of them occurring in a machine? I can foresee a sort of “featherless biped” scenario here without more details about the question.
Lots of debate since ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion can be summarised as A: "AI cheated by copying humans, it just mixes the bits up really small like a collage" B: "So like humans learning from books and studying artists?" A: "That doesn't count, it's totally different"
Even though I am quite happy to agree that differences exist, I have yet to see a clear answer as to what about people even mean when asserting that AI learning from books is "cheating" given that it's *mandatory* for humans in most places.
and yet, so confident. so secure. interesting.