There are lots of meaningful definitions, the people saying we haven't reached AGI just don't use them. For most of the last half-century people would have agreed that machines that can pass the Turing test and win Math Olympiad gold are AGI.
We’ll know AGI when we see it, and this ain’t it. This complaining about changing goalposts is so transparently sour grapes from people over-invested in hyping the current LLM paradigm.
Says who? I had already found this study, published almost a year ago, saying that they do: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674
There doesn't seem to be a super-rigorous definition of the Turing Test, but I don't think it's reasonable to require it to fool an expert whose life depends on the correct choice. It already seems to be decently able to fool a person of average intelligence who has a basic knowledge of LLMs.
I agree that we don't really have AGI yet, but I'd hope we can come up with a better definition of what it is than "we'll know it when we see it". I think it is a legitimate point that we've moved the goalposts some.
Artificial General Intelligence will exist when the grifters who profit from it claim it exists. The meaning of it will shift to benefit certain entrepreneurs. It will never actually be a useful term in science nor philosophy.
Does it? Where?
Searles thought experiment is stupid and debunked nothing. What neuron, cell, atom of your brain understands English ? That's right. You can't answer that anymore than you can answer the subject of Searles proposition, ergo the brain is a Chinese room. If you conclude that you understand English, then the Chinese room understands Chinese.
> Searle’s response to the Systems Reply is simple: in principle, he could internalize the entire system, memorizing all the instructions and the database, and doing all the calculations in his head. He could then leave the room and wander outdoors, perhaps even conversing in Chinese. But he still would have no way to attach “any meaning to the formal symbols”. The man would now be the entire system, yet he still would not understand Chinese. For example, he would not know the meaning of the Chinese word for hamburger. He still cannot get semantics from syntax.
Really, here the only issue is Searle's inability to grasp the concept that the process is what does the understanding, not the person (or machine, or neurons) that performs it.
Now, you could argue that this right here is the aforementioned moving of the goalposts. After all, we're deciding that the casual Turing test wasn't interesting precisely after having seen that LLMs could pass it.
However, in my view, the Turing test _always_ implied the "rigorous" Turing test, and it's only now that we're actually flirting with passing it that it had to be clarified what counts as a true Turing test. As I see it, the Turing test can still be salvaged as a criteria for genera intelligence, but only if you allow it to be a no-holds-barred, life-depends-on-it test to exhaustion. This would involve allowing arbitrarily long questioning periods, for instance. I think this is more in the spirit of the original formulation, because the whole idea is to pit a machine against all of human intelligence, proving it has a similar arsenal of adaptability at its disposal. If it only has to passingly fool a human for brief periods, well... I'm afraid that just doesn't prove much. All sorts of stuff briefly fools humans. What requires intelligence is to consistently anticipate and adapt to all lines of questioning in a sustained manner until the human runs out of ideas for how to differentiate.
Thinking cool and all but not that extraordinary. Even plants does it.
I would argue that Schrödinger’s cat has done more damage to the general understanding of quantum physics then it has done good. In contrary though, I don‘t think the same about the Turing test. I think it has resulted in a net positive for the theory of mind as long as people take Searle’s rebuttal into account. Without it (as is sadly common in popular philosophy) the Turing test is simply just wrong, and offers no good insight for neither philosophy nor science.
Turing's imitation game is about making it difficult for a human to tell whether they are communicating with a computer or not. If a computer can trick the human, then... what? The computer is "thinking" ?
I think most people would say that's an insufficient act to prove thinking. Even though no one has a rigorous definition of thinking either.
All this stuff goes around in circles and like most philosophy makes little progress.
Turing’s point in his 1950 paper was actually to provide a substitute to the question of whether machines could think. If a machine can win the imitation game, he argued, is a better question to ask rather then “can a machine think”. Searle showed that this is in fact this criteria was not a good one. But by 1980 philosophy of mind had advanced significantly, partially thanks to Turing’s contributions, particularly via cognitive science, but in the 1980s we also had neuropsychology, which kind of revolutionized this subfield of philosophy.
I think philosophy is actually rather important when formulating questions like these, and even more so when evaluating the quality of the answers. That said, I am not the biggest fan of the state of mainstream philosophy in the 1940s. I kind of have a beef with logical positivism, and honestly believe that even Turing’s mediocre philosophy was on a much better track then what the biggest thinkers of the time were doing with their operational definition.
I see no reason to disqualify p-zombies from being AGI.
If you read his paper, Turing was trying to make a specific point. The Turing test itself is just one example of how that broader point might manifest.
If a thinking machine can not be distinguished from a thinking human then it is thinking. That was his idea. In broader terms, any material distinction should be testable. If it is not, then it does not exist. What do you call 'fake gold' that looks, smells etc and reacts as 'real gold' in every testable way ? That's right - Real gold. And if you claimed otherwise, you would just look like a mad man, but swap gold for thinking, intelligence etc and it seems a lot of mad men start to appear.
You don't need to 'prove' anything, and it's not important or relevant that anyone try to do so. You can't prove to me that you think, so why on earth should the machine do so ? And why would you think it matters ? Does the fact you can't prove to me that you think change the fact that it would be wise to model you as someone that does ?
The test is to showcase that the question of whether machines can think is meaningless. The point of Turing's thesis is that passing his test just proves the machine has the capability to pass such a test, which is actually meaningful.
Are you involved in politics somehow?