I think what we have is mostly AGI. It’s artificial , it’s intelligence, and most important it’s general. It may never get an IQ about 75 or so, but it’s here.
Crazy how fast people acclimate to sci-fi tech.
What we have today in the form of LLMs would be a VI under Mass Effect's rules, and not a very good one.
The term AGI so obviously means something way smarter than what we have. We do have something impressive but it’s very limited.
I.e., what I mean is that we don’t have any AI system close to human intelligence.
Halo also builds a distinction, with "Smart AI" what we would generally consider AGI and even super AGI, against "Dumb AI" which is purposely limited. Similarly, our current LLMs are similar to "Dumb AI" in shape but not even remotely close in capability.
In both universes, an "AI" or similar system will not hallucinate. If they tell you something wrong, or inaccurate, it's usually because they have been tampered with or because they have "Gone crazy" which is an identifiable state that is not normal and not probabilistic.
Star Trek also makes distinctions. The ships computer for example largely does not make deductions, and doesn't always operate in natural human language but instead requires you use specific phrasing and language. The Star Trek ships computer is basically what using 20 year old text to speech to run Wikipedia and database queries, and that's mostly it. It cannot analyze data itself. Data and the fully conscious Sherlock Holmes are both capable of automatically forming and testing a hypothesis.
It's actually weird how many people don't seem to notice that. The ships computer in star trek is purposely dumb, and command driven. It is not an agent, it does not think, and it does not understand natural human language. We had the star trek ships computer decades ago.
I agree that the term AGI is the problem. If I have something as intelligent as a mouse that should be AGI, if I have something a intelligent as a bird that should be AGI. Same is it's as intelligent as a 2 year old human, or someone with an IQ of 75. Those would all clearly be Artificial, General Intelligences.
But the problem is the term AGI also oddly has this bar that if must be equal to our better than human (a standard that the majority of humans would fail based on definition of intelligence alone). Plus multidisciplinary better than all humans (which it would take a super genius to have a human accomplish).
Given the current definition of you took a bright high schooler and made them artificial they wouldn't count as AGI which makes the definition silly.
And that is separate from the entire concept of sentience - which it's unclear if it's a requirement for intelligence.
It's all a bunch of squishy definitions mashed together.