Comment by generallyjosh

I do strongly agree on the framing, but I'd argue with the conclusion

Yeah, it really doesn't matter if AGI has happened, is going to happen, will never happen, whatever. No matter what sort of definition we make for it, someone's always doing to disagree anyway. For a looong time, we thought the Turing test was the standard, and that only a truly intelligent computer could beat it. It's been blown out of the water for years now, and now we're all arguing about new definitions for AGI

At the end of the day, like you say, it doesn't matter a bit how we define terms. We can label it whatever we want, but the label doesn't change what it can DO

What it can DO is the important part. I think a lot of software devs are coming to terms with the idea that AI will be able to replace vast chunks of our jobs in the very near future.

If you use these things heavily, you can see the trajectory.

6 months ago I'd only trust them for boiler plate code generation and writing/reviewing short in-line documentation.

Today, with the latest models and tools, I'm trusting them with short/low impact tasks (go implement this UI fix, then redeploy the app locally, navigate to it, and verify the fix looks correct).

6 months from now, my best guess is that they'll continue to become more capable of handling longer + more complex tasks on their own.

5 years from now, I'm seeing a real possibility that they'll be handling all the code, end to end.

Doesn't matter if we call that AGI or not. It very much will matter whose jobs get cut, because one person with AI can do the work of 20 developers