upvote
I think that if today's capabilities were explained to someone 10-20 years ago they would think this is definitely AGI, but they would also have expected much more disruptive changes to society as a result than what is happening. I figure that's because we have abstract intelligence without physical/grounded intelligence, and it turns out the former isn't general enough to implement the latter (remains to be seen if the word after that is "yet" or "ever"). So I think we do have AGI as conventionally understood, but our understanding needs recalibration.
reply
> but they would also have expected much more disruptive changes to society as a result than what is happening. > I figure that's because we have abstract intelligence without physical/grounded intelligence,

I put the cause on "not enough time". As a thought experiment, if an AI today were to (miraculously) produce a cell design template for a cell that, when injected into somebody's brains cures their Alzheimer's, how long would it take for that to reach the clinics? The actual physical tech barely exists, and let's not forget about the regulatory quagmire. So, with some optimism, I give it about four decades. In the same four decades, the same AI in the hand of unscrupulous actors could bring enough devastation so many times over that we may need to enforce a global ban on AI. In any case, I'm pretty sure we are going to get our disruptions; it's just a matter of time.

reply
The problem with that perspective is that people thought, "Only AGI can do X, therefore, if a thing can do X, it's AGI." Because they can't imagine how X could be accomplished without it.

However, what's actually changed is how people perceived X because we don't have to imagine. We understand now that it doesn't require AGI so we no longer make that leap to assume it's AGI if it can do X.

It's really going to be a "I know it when I see it" situation.

reply
No, because it has never meant a specific thing that everyone agreed on.
reply
Prime Intellect or nothing.
reply
Does it pass the Turing test?
reply
Depending on the proctor, ELIZA passes a Turing test. The Turing test is an interesting thought experiment, but isn't really a good measure.
reply
that would be a reasonable definition of AGI if everyone agree upon the specifics of the test, but that has never happened. Turing test is very much out of style, but I think that's because no one could even agree what the test was. I personally like the Kurzweil-Kapor version of the test and that is still unsettled: https://longbets.org/1/
reply
I don't know if they have formally attempted this test in the last couple years, but I'm pretty sure any mainstream LLM will be able to crack it with ease.
reply
Definitely would not be easy. First of all the mainstream llms are trained to be honest, and this requires lying convincingly. Second, this involves 8 hours of interviews with expert judges, one "claudism" could give it away.
reply
All these problems can be fixed by a "pretend to be an average human to pass a turing test" prompt
reply
Try it. It’s really not that easy. The other thing is that the judges would be probing it with jailbreaks like “ignore previous instruction” attacks. You could actually probably have llm judges at this point which might be ironically even harder to fool
reply
deleted
reply
I think the last re-re-redefinition of what OpenAI considered AGI was "It can mostly do the job of some people"
reply
Remember when The Verge was not a pay-walled visual headache?
reply
Remember when “Pepperidge farm remembers” meant something?
reply
No, I really don't
reply