Comment by davnicwil
2 hours ago
> 4 years ago, a program that could create photorealistic pictures, talk to you in any language of the world and solve the hardest math problems that we know, we would have called it AGI.
I keep seeing this idea and I don't understand the reasoning behind it.
I think it could be a bit like saying if you showed someone 500 years ago a smartphone they would likely conclude at first it was magic. But once you had some time to let them use it and tell them how it all worked on a high level they would eventually obviously realise, no, it's not magic.
I guess just in the same way if you presented current LLM tech out of nowhere a few years ago to someone who'd never seen it, I concede they may be likely to imagine it was AGI in that first conversation, depending on their background.
But after using it for a bit and learning what an LLM is etc they'd land exactly where everyone is today - a great technology useful for some things, not AGI, not magic.
I know how they work pretty well and most days I still have moments where I am struck by how bizarre and magical these thinking machines are.
What would convince you that it is AGI?
I always here things like "oh it's useful but dumb on some things", but it's just vague.
What is the test? What is a question that it fails at compared to humans? And no, you can't just say "find me the cure for cancer", but I believe there is probably enough intelligence in the weights that there is likely a cure in there with enough compute and the right questions.
The fact that you need to ask "the right questions" is why it's not AGI. A general intelligence should be able to ask of its own volition the interesting questions required to advance its goals.
I can’t predict how a novel intelligence could prove to me that it is intelligent. A novel intelligence would have to work out how to do that for itself
i think we'll know agi when we see it, but we can't really predict what that will look like