There are two subtly different definitions in use: (1) “like intelligence in useful ways, but not actually”, and (2) “actually intelligent, but not of human wetware”. I take the A in AGI to be of type (2).
LLMs are doing (1), right now. They may have the “neurological structure” required for (2), but to make a being General and Intelligent it needs to compress its context window persist it to storage every night as it sleeps. It needs memory and agency. It needs to be able to learn in real time and self-adjusting its own weights. And if it’s doing all that, then who is to say it doesn't have a soul?
Artificial means human made, if we made a thing that is intelligent, then it is artificial intelligence.
It is like "artificial insemination" means a human designed system to inseminate rather than the natural way. It is still a proper insemination, artificial doesn't mean "fake", it just means unnatural/human made.
I guess I don’t understand the technical difference between AI and AGI and consider AI to refer to the social meme of “this thing kinda seems like it did something intelligent, like magic”.
Aren't humans themselves essentially human made?
Maybe a better definition would be non-human (or inorganic if we want to include intelligence like e.g. dolphins)?
No, not in the sense in which the word "made" is being used here.
> Maybe a better definition would be non-human (or inorganic if we want to include intelligence like e.g. dolphins)?
Neither of these work. Calling intelligence in animals "artificial" is absurd, and "inorganic" arbitrarily excludes "head cheese" style approaches to building artificial intelligence.
"Artificial" strongly implies mimicry of something that occurs naturally, and is derived from the same root as "artifice", which can be defined as "to construct by means of skill or specialized art". This obviously excludes the natural biological act of reproduction that produces a newborn human brain (and support equipment) primed to learn and grow; reportedly, sometimes people don't even know they're pregnant until they go into labor (and figure out that's what's happening).
It turns out that some (many, in fact) words mean different things in different contexts. My comment makes an explicit argument concerning the connotations and nuances of the word "made" used in this context, and you have not responded to that argument.
Maybe you should have written a substantive response to my comments instead of trying and failing to dunk on me. Maybe you don't understand as much as you think you do.
Humans evolved, but yeah the definition can be a bit hard to understand since it is hard to separate things. That is why I brought up the artificial insemination example since it deals with this.
> Maybe a better definition would be non-human (or inorganic if we want to include intelligence like e.g. dolphins)?
We also have artificial lakes, they are inorganic but human made.