There was an HN comment I read a few months or may be a year ago, which stuck with me ever since.
He said he works on AI in the late 80s and early 90s in IBM. Had we shown him what we have today in 1995, he would certainly have called it AGI.
He said he works on AI in the late 80s and early 90s in IBM. Had we shown him what we have today in 1995, he would certainly have called it AGI.
So what? You guys can keep moving the goalposts, until it reaches full human intelligence (and not in a small niche), it is not AGI.
I don't know if there was ever a formal definition of "human intelligence". But those who works inside software industry, the bar of human intelligence is comparatively higher, because that is what is considered as norm in industry.
If we take IQ curve, 50% of population will be under IQ 100. If current LLM scores better than IQ 100, i.e better than 50% of human population, is this AGI?
As I am wondering why I have to explain how human intelligence work to presumably another human, there is much more to intelligence, and thus AGI, than an IQ test or being able to think hard about Fermat's last theorem after having been fed the entirety of human knowledge and a few GWh of power.
There is a term already to define intelligence which isn't as general and flexible as a human: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_artificial_intelligence
- have emotions - have self-awareness - express creativity
Why? Because that would be the end of humanity. In such a case, AI will feel "superior" like humans do to other animals. And we know how that will end.
And intelligent entity without the crap above won't ever "feel" superior while it will still be able to built a beaming device on humand command.
At the same time current LLM tech has no business being called 'AGI' when it is nothing more than an idiot savant with very narrow expertise and complete intellectual inflexibility.