oakhan3

I made a follow up to this post - https://breaking-changes.blog/agi-is-here-part-2/

I like this - calling it "usefulness" - I think that's actually something the community could get behind - AGU - where we are right now, and 2 terms for 2 milestones we have yet to reach - which could be reached in any order:

1. increases in consistency and quality to some specific measure

2. development of human-like qualities - "consciousness"? "Intuition"?

And then we toss the term AGI which is overloaded and ambiguous.

It's evidently fueled a healthy debate here and you've tossed your opinion in the ring because of it.

I think you're on to something - we need a measure of what is considered "human levels of competence" or some bar by which we say "ok this is consistent enough"

We are definitely due for a rerun, I'd be curious

That vending machine comment is probably referring to https://www.anthropic.com/research/project-vend-1 - which is a fair point.

But I think it actually supports my thesis: we either haven't defined AGI well enough, or we've met it and are now waiting for something beyond it that doesn't have a name yet - something with the common sense and situational intuition a human would have in a scenario like that. The goalposts keep moving because the definition was never solid to begin with.

It is quoted relentlessly and so is worth addressing, for example see https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/artificial-general-intellig...

I mentioned it to have a more complete set of definitions for AGI from across the community - but do agree that it is by far the weakest and more-so a measurement of human variability and gullibility than AI intelligence.

Interesting, could you explain it further - I'd like to know what that means - I thought I covered this in definition 8 - but with the very blatant asterisk in the post being - we have it and it works but it doesn't work consistently enough and with acceptable quality in long enough runs or open ended tasks - but I believe we will get closer and closer to this target with improvements in models and scaffolding.

I think we agree - we have arbritrary goalposts regarding AGI and they have been met. WE don't know what we consider to be "the big changing moment" and that moment is hard to define because we don't have a good definition of it when we talk about ourselves even.

So the convo becomes - what is that "thing" and do we need to draw similarities between "it" and our own intelligence.