The shape of the intelligence frontier has turned out to be much more jagged than anyone at the time expected, so I can imagine reasonable objections from someone who has a specific, concrete benchmark of AGI that wasn't invented 6 months ago and isn't yet met. If someone just has a subjective sense that they're not smart enough, I think they're wrong.
If it was obvious I don't think there would be disagreement.
This is not a convincing argument.
How about "will" and "desire"? These seem like things an actual intelligence would have.
> it’s clear to me that the remaining holdouts have religious objections at this point
From where I sit, it sure seems like claims of having achieved AGI are religious in nature.
- The very definition of AGI is not agreed upon, much less definitions of god
- Despite the burden of proof being on those claiming AGI, every request for proof is spurned with a "no u"
> Despite the burden of proof being on those claiming AGI, every request for proof is spurned with a "no u"
I think you're misunderstanding the dynamics here. I genuinely don't understand what people mean when they say cutting-edge AI is not generally intelligent. To my ears it's like saying that an electric car isn't really capable of driving. In order to even begin to engage in that discussion, I'd have to understand where the person saying it is coming from and why they don't consider every EV on the road to be a counterexample.
That is your will and desire. They are following your instructions. There is no "intelligence" there.
> I genuinely don't understand what people mean when they say cutting-edge AI is not generally intelligent
I don't really know where to go either. From my perspective you are too far down the rabbit hole and I don't think we can come to a meaningful shared understanding.
Good luck with that.
Honestly I don't know what to say. Good luck to you.