GPT 4 is clearly AGI. All of the GPTs have shown general intelligence, but GPT 4 is human-level intelligence.
When you compare it to an entry level data entry role, it's absolutely AGI. You loosely tell it what it needs to do, step-by-step, and it does it.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03762
If it was really AGI, there won't even be ambiguity and room for comments like mine.
Also, the fact that it can't incorporate knowledge at the same time as it interacts with us kind of limits the idea of an AGI.
But regardless, it's absurdly impressive what it can do today.
Then you haven't been paying any attention to them.
https://chat.openai.com/share/986f55d2-8a46-4b16-974f-840cb0...
This thing is two years old. Be patient.
Do you have any data that shows that we’ll plateau any time soon?
Because if this trend continues, we’ll have superhuman levels of compute within 5 years.
People that have lost those abilities still have human level of intelligence.
I don't think LLMs have really demonstrated anything interesting around generalized intelligence, which although a fairly abstract concept, can be thought of as being able to solve truly novel problems outside their training corpora. I suspect there still needs to be a fair amount of work improving both the model design itself, the training data, and even the mental model of ML researchers, before we have systems that can truly reason in a way that demonstrates their generalized intelligence.
> As if most humans would do any better on those exercises.
Thats not the point. If you claim you have a machine that can fly, you can't get around a proof of that by saying "mOsT hUmAns cAnt fly" so therefore this machine not flying is irrelevant.
This thing either objectively reasons or not. It is irrelevant how well humans do on those tests.
> This thing is two years old. Be patient.
Nobody is cutting off the future. We are debating the current technology. AI has been around for 70 years. Just open any history book on AI.
At various points from 1950, the gullible mass claimed AGI.
OpenAI's performance is not and has never been proportional to the size of their models. Their big advantage is scale, which lets them ship unrealistically large models by leveraging subsidized cloud costs. They win by playing a more destructive and wasteful game, and their competitors can beat them by shipping a cheaper competitive alternative.
What exactly are we holding out for, at this point? A miracle?
Who's claiming it now? All I see is a paper slagging GPT4 for struggling in tests that no one ever claimed it could pass.
In any case, if it were possible to bet $1000 that 90%+ of those tests will be passed within 10 years, I'd be up for that.
(I guess I should read the paper more carefully first, though, to make sure he's not feeding it unsolved Hilbert problems or some other crap that smart humans wouldn't be able to deal with. My experience with these sweeping pronouncements is that they're all about moving the goalposts as far as necessary to prove that nothing interesting is happening.)
"GPT 4 is clearly AGI. All of the GPTs have shown general intelligence, but GPT 4 is human-level intelligence. "
Being able to emit code to solve problems it couldn't otherwise handle is a huge deal, maybe an adequate definition of intelligence in itself. Parrots don't write Python.