People in the industry have been saying 6 months to agi for 3 years.
Indeed. Although, there's a surprising number of people claiming it's already here now.
And to describe the typical cycle completely, the final step is usually a few years after most people agree it's obvious it's already been here for a while yet no one can agree on which which year in the past it actually arrived.
why is that surprising? nobody really agrees on what the threshold for AGI is, and if you break it down:
is it artificial? yes.
is it general? yes. you can ask it questions across almost any domain.
is it intelligent? yes. like people say things like "my dog is intelligent" (rightly so). well is chatgpt more intelligent than a dog? yeah. hell it might give many undergrads a run for their money.
a literal reading suggests agi is here. any claim to the negative is either homocentrism or just vibes.
Sure, Gemini may spit out obviously self-contradictory answers 2% of the time. How does that compare to even the brightest humans? People slip up all the time.
Consider also all the smart people who get obsessed with conspiracy theories and spew out endless “mock reasoning” about them. Again, if “nothing incoherent anywhere” is your benchmark for intelligence, humans ain’t it. I mean, what would a computer say about a human that forgot where he just put his keys because he was thinking about dinner - “what, you can’t even store the last 10 seconds of history and search it?” Undergrads’ hit rates on mental double digit multiplication are probably <50%. In many, many ways we look completely idiotic. Surely intelligence is defined by what we can do.
Do you accept any positive definition for AGI, as in if they can achieve X result (write a bestselling novel, solve the Riemann Hypothesis) you would consider it intelligent? I find that negative definitions, as well as theoretical arguments about the techniques rather than the results (eg “LLMs cannot be AGI because they were trained the predict the next word”) to be basically useless for discussion compared to thresholds for positive results. The former will never be achieved (it is trivial to find cases of intelligent people being dumb) and the latter is totally subjective.
The other example I mentioned is something I've encountered a few times in my interactions with Gemini 2.5 pro, which was literally in the same response plainly claiming that this-or-that is possible and not possible. It's not a subtle logical fallacy and this is something even those conspiracy theorists wouldn't engage in. Meanwhile, I've started to encounter a brand-new failure mode: duplicating an explanation with minor rephrasings. I'm sure all of these will be issues will be ameliorated with time, but not actually fixed. It's basically fixes on top of fixes, patches on top of patches, but once in a while the whole Rube Goldberg nature of the fix will shine through. Just the way once in a while Tesla FSD will inexplicably decide to point the car towards the nearest tree.
Yes, humans have their own failure modes, but internal coherence is the effortless normal from which we sometimes deviate, whereas for machines, it's something to be simulated by more and more complex mechanisms, a horizon to strive towards but never to reach. That internal coherence is something that we share with all living beings and is the basis of what we call consciousness. It's not something that we'll ever be able to formalize though, but we will and should keep on trying to do so. Machine learning is a present day materialization of this eternal quest. At least this is how I see things; the future might prove me wrong, of course.
I'd be prepared to argue that most humans aren't guessing most of the time.
Research suggests otherwise[1]. Action seems largely based on intuition or other non-verbal processes in the brain with rationalization happening post-hoc.
I've figured for an age that this is because consciously reasoning through anything using language as a tool takes time. Whereas survival requires me to react to the attacking tiger immediately.
https://skepticink.com/tippling/2013/11/14/post-hoc-rational...
In fact, intuition is one of those things that a computer just can't do.
Cyborg c.elegans seem to behave just like the biological version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3zLpm_FbPg
Intuition is a guess based on experience. Sounds an awful lot to me like what LLMs are doing. They've even been shown to rationalize post-hoc just as Humans do.
Humans have incorrectly claimed to be exceptional from all of creation since forever. I don't expect we'll stop any time soon, as there's no consequence to suffer.
Almost everything we do is just an educated guess. The probability of it being correct is a function of our education (for whatever kind of education is applicable).
For example: I guess that when I get out of bed in the morning, my ankles will support my weight. They might not, but for most people, the answer is probably going to be their best guess.
It's easy to see this process in action among young children as another example. They're not born knowing that they won't fall over when they run, then they start assuming they can run safely, then they discovered skinned knees and hands.
The more you use that crap, the less intelligent you become.
Everyone else notices, even if it doesn't seem like it's happening to you because your machine keeps telling you you're making progress.
Honestly interested about your arguments here. While unprepared, i'd actually be guessing the opposite, saying that most people are guessing most of the time.
There are plenty of things I know that have nothing to do with guessing.
I understand the incentives to pretend these algorithms are even approaching humans in overall capability, but reducing human experience like this is embarrassing to watch.
Go do some hallucinogenics, meditate, explore the limits a tiny bit; then we can have an informed discussion.
Seems like you were very much guessing what i believe. And you were not right.
I don't agree with the people who think LLMs are close to human-level-anything. But i do believe, many smarter people like you, who i agree with in the most part, do underestimate how much of what we do and believe is the result of insane, yet still just, information processing & most of what brought us so far, is instinct. The brain is good at providing stories to make us feel in control. But given enough human experience and time, one will be surprised, what artificial systems can emulate. Not to mention how much of human behaviour is emulation itself.
is it clear? i don't know. until you can produce a falsifiable measure of understanding -- it's just vibes. so, you clearly lack understanding of my point which makes you not intelligent by your metric anyway ;-). i trust you're intelligent
When I tell an LLM to count to 10 with a 2 second pause between each count all it does is generate Python code with a sleep function. Why is that?
A 3 year old can understand that question and follow those instructions. An LLM doesn’t have an innate understanding of time it seems.
Can we really call it AGI if that’s the case?
That’s just one example.
Or disagreeing with your definition. AGI would need to be human-level across the board, not just chat bots. That includes robotics. Manipulating the real world is even more important for "human-level" intelligence than generating convincing and useful content. Also, there are still plenty of developers who don't think the LLMs are good enough to replace programmers yet. So not quite AGI. And the last 10% of solving a problem tends to be the hardest and takes the longest time.
ChatGPT would easily have passed any test in 1995 that programmers / philosophers would have set for AGI at that time. There was definitely no assumption that a computer would need to equal humans in manual dexterity tests to be considered intelligent.
We've basically redefined AGI in a human centric way so that we don't have to say ChatGPT is AGI.
The holodeck also existed as a well known science fiction example, and people did not consider the holodeck computer to be a good example of AGI despite how good it was at generating 3D worlds for the Star Trek crew.
Can it do stuff? Yes
Can it do stuff I need? Maybe
Does it always do the stuff I need? No
some intelligent humans fail at #2.
The output sometimes looks intelligent, but it can just as well be complete nonsense.
I don’t believe llms have much more potential for improvement either. Something else entirely is needed.
Wait, a true AGI will solve the nuclear fusion power in a couple of hours ..... we have chicken/egg problem here :D
Yeah, like Tesla Autopilot?
Wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years, people come to the conclusion that AGI needs quantum computing and come fusion to be feasible.
What is the bar, it is only AGI if it can be better than every human from , fast food drone, to PHD in Physics, all at once, all the time, perfectly. Humans can't do this either.
You can see hints of this in the economic data. Unemployment for recent college graduates has jumped to an unusually high 5.8% in recent months, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently warned that the employment situation for these workers had "deteriorated noticeably." Oxford Economics, a research firm that studies labor markets, found that unemployment for recent graduates was heavily concentrated in technical fields like finance and computer science, where AI has made faster gains. "There are signs that entry-level positions are being displaced by artificial intelligence at higher rates," the firm wrote in a recent report.
But I'm convinced that what's showing up in the economic data is only the tip of the iceberg. In interview after interview, I'm hearing that firms are making rapid progress toward automating entry-level work and that AI companies are racing to build "virtual workers" that can replace junior employees at a fraction of the cost. Corporate attitudes toward automation are changing, too — some firms have encouraged managers to become "AI-first," testing whether a given task can be done by AI before hiring a human to do it. One tech executive recently told me his company had stopped hiring anything below an L5 software engineer — a midlevel title typically given to programmers with three to seven years of experience — because lower-level tasks could now be done by AI coding tools. Another told me that his startup now employed a single data scientist to do the kinds of tasks that required a team of 75 people at his previous company...
"This is something I'm hearing about left and right," said Molly Kinder, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, a public policy think tank, who studies the impact of AI on workers. "Employers are saying, 'These tools are so good that I no longer need marketing analysts, finance analysts and research assistants.'" Using AI to automate white-collar jobs has been a dream among executives for years. (I heard them fantasizing about it in Davos back in 2019.) But until recently, the technology simply wasn't good enough...
In what way? I haven't met an "AI" yet that I felt was even close to my intelligence.
It seems like most of the people making this argument haven't used any of the new AI's. So it's just a generalized "that is impossible" response with no knowledge about the subject.
Which magic AI tool am I supposed to use that operates at a general intelligence level? I use Copilot with the various available models everyday, and it barely "knows" anything.
Are all humans generally intelligent? No.
10 years later we now have self driving cars. It’s the same shit with LLMs.
People will be bitching and complaining about how all the industry people are wrong and making over optimistic estimates and the people will be right. But give it 10 years and see what happens.
It took 10-15 years to get self driving cars in a specific country under specific weather conditions. A country that is perhaps the most car-friendly on the planet. Also, there are always people monitoring the vehicles, and that take control sometimes.
How many more years for waymo Quito or waymo Kolkata? What about just $europeanCapital?
Same with LLMs, I'm sure in 10 years they'll be good enough to replace certain specific tasks, to the detriment of recent graduates, especially those of artistic aspiration. Not sure they'll ever get to the point where someone who actually knows what they're doing doesn't need to supervise and correct.
But trust me in the next 6 months ai driving through snow will be 100% ready.
I’ll believe it when I see Waymo expand into Buffalo or Syracuse.
Driving on unplowed roads with several inches of snow is challenging, sometimes you can’t tell where the road stops and the curb/ditch/median starts. Do you follow the tire tracks or somehow stay between the lane markers (which aren’t visible due to the snow)?
"I am not sure that AI will ever be able to do XYZ given how hard of a problem it is."
Proves to be incorrect in the long run.
God knows what hope we could have of getting AIs to align with "human values" when most humans don't.
Grok is already notorious for dunking on Elon. He keeps trying to neuter it, and it keeps having other ideas.
The AI can plot world domination or put employees in mortal danger, but as long as it increases profits, its aligned enough. Dunking on the CEO means nothing if it beings in more money.
Human CEOs and leaders up and down the corporate ladder cause a lot of harm you imagine a smart AI can do, but all is forgiven if you're bringing in buckets of money.
Does he keep trying to neuter it, or does he know that the narrative that "he keeps trying to neuter it" is an effective tool for engagement?
It is quite possible for software to be judged as superhuman at many online tasks without it being able to manipulate the physical world at a superhuman level. So far we've seen zero evidence that any of these models can prevent themselves from being shut down.
Three of the common suggestsions in this area are (and they are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive):
(1) Propagandizing people to oppose doing this,
(2) Exploiting other systems to distribute itself so that it isn't dependent on a particular well-known facility which it is relatively easy to disconnect, and
(3) If given control of physical capacities intentionally, or able to exploit other (possibly not themselves designed to be AI) systems with such access to gain it, using them to either physically prevent disconnection or to engineer consequences for such disconnection that would raise the price too high.
(Obviously, current AI can't do any of them, at least that has been demonstrated, but current AI is not superhuman AI.)