AGI Is Not a Milestone

And yeah I think the industry leans too heavily on LLMs right now. They don't understand, but they're really good at making it seem they do. Then the users get impressed by that and want more and more stuff that requires understanding and the industry just makes it because $$$. But because of that it's so hit and miss.

  Whereas early AGI proponents believed that machines would soon take on all human activities, researchers have learned the hard way that creating AI systems that can beat you at chess or answer your search queries is a lot easier than building a robot to fold your laundry or fix your plumbing. The definition of AGI was adjusted accordingly to include only so-called “cognitive tasks.” DeepMind cofounder Demis Hassabis defines AGI as a system that “should be able to do pretty much any cognitive task that humans can do,” and OpenAI describes it as “highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work,” where “most” leaves out tasks requiring the physical intelligence that will likely elude robots for some time.

Transformer-powered robots still seem exceptionally stupid compared to frogs, bees, etc.

Re the shock comment - it is difficult to argue that ChatGPT has actually changed the economy much, despite widespread adoption. Overheated tech stocks, dev tooling, better scammers, better academic cheaters, etc are not exactly an industrial revolution. And frankly for many users it is more of a toy than a useful tool, e.g. the Studio Ghibli fad.