> we’re already at AGI
Honestly - software that can read any long document (possibly educational) and answer complex detailed questions about it should have been sufficient.
We hit that a while back and the goalposts have been sprinting ever since.
Honestly - software that can read any long document (possibly educational) and answer complex detailed questions about it should have been sufficient.
We hit that a while back and the goalposts have been sprinting ever since.
I think it's also mostly a useless discussion. Since LLMs use a vastly different substrate, different training methods, etc. than humans, the cognitive abilities are always going to be a large mismatch to those of humans. On the one hand, they have surpassed humans in many areas, with superhuman recall, exploration of several paths, etc. On the other hand, they miss a certain feel for direction, overview, purpose, and ordering. They can really double down going completely in the wrong direction. So I'd rather say that it is a different intelligence and therefore it makes more sense to evaluate them by capabilities.
I think the mismatching intelligence is actually quite exciting, because the outcome may as well be that LLMs and human intelligence are complementary. That is if we don't let LLMs atrophy our skills, which is unfortunately happening too much.
I don’t feel like the goal posts have moved at all. I think most of us have a pretty good and stable intuition of what AGI should be. Like, just a generally intelligent robot for instance? Nothing too fancy. Just use one of those robot dogs. Don’t have to be smarter than a dog either. But you should be able to put an artificial brain in it and have something that can act about as intelligently as a dog, in a stable way, over the course of 10 years.
Hell, to make the bar even easier: could make it a believable NPC dog in a game.
We’ve pushed AI as close to edge of AGI as I could imagine. It’s hard not to think we’ll find some algorithm that pushes us over the edge fairly soon. But until we actually get there, let’s not exaggerate.
I mean, when we do get an AI algorithm that can actually learn like a human/animal intelligence.. what would we call it if we’ve already used “AGI”? “Very General Artificial Intelligence”?
I’m almost more inclined to start using “ASI” first. Even if our LLMs are not general in the way I’m thinking of, they’re clearly superior to an average human on every aspect they’ve been trained on. They’re also much faster. We can probably soon say “if you can train an AI on something it will be better than any human”.
10 years ago the Turing test was sufficient.
A bayesian filter in a quadrillion dimension does more that one that only has one dimension, but it is only more of the same.
So humans wouldn't qualify for AGI either. Good to know.
Individually we are specialized intelligence. As a society we are absolutely a General Intelligence though
That's millions of light years ahead than any current AI that only looks up very fast the solution space for code, language or math.
Right. So you admit that what we're looking for now is super human. Not just human, but more than human.
That's those goalposts I was talking about.
I mean sure, but who cares? It's a machine.
The same way an excavator is not judged by human standards, neither should AI be. It's a machine
Requiring the intelligence to be above human is a shifted goalpost. Full stop.
LLM struggle with even the most simple PCBs, how can one say they are minimally intelligent in that case?
> Anyone can do what I said with the minimum amount of training.
I'll bet you ten bucks that is not in the least bit true.
EDIT: Heh - I just did a bit of research - apparently agents do a fine job with simple PCB boards - but we shouldn't expect them to replace experts. "Experts" being the key word. Exactly what I said.
https://hackaday.com/2026/09/05/can-ai-now-design-pcbs-that-...