zlacker

>>apsec1+(OP)
Sutskever: "You can call it (a coup), and I can understand why you chose this word, but I disagree with this. This was the board doing its duty to the mission of the nonprofit, which is to make sure that OpenAI builds AGI that benefits all of humanity."

Scoop: theinformation.com

https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1725707548106580255

>>convex+X1
The funny thing is that so far OpenAI has made zero demonstrable progress toward building a true AGI. ChatGPT is an extraordinary technical accomplishment and useful for many things, but there is no evidence that scaling up that approach will get to AGI. At least a few more major breakthroughs will probably be needed.

>>nradov+5e
AGI is about definitions. By many definitions, it’s already here. Hence MSR’s “sparks of AGI” paper and Eric Schmidt’s article in Noema. But by the definition “as good or better than humans at all things”, it fails.

>>dr_dsh+3r
That "Sparks of AI" paper was total garbage, just complete nonsense and confirmation bias.

Defining AGI is more than just semantics. The generally accepted definition is that it must be able to complete most cognitive tasks as well as an average human. Otherwise we could as well claim that ELIZA was AGI, which would obviously be ridiculous.

>>nradov+Er
> The generally accepted definition is that it must be able to complete most cognitive tasks as well as an average human.

That is a definition. It is not a generally accepted definition.