zlacker

Why define AGI like that? General intelligence is supposed to be something like human intelligence. You are talking about ASI.

>>golol+(OP)
I'm curious to hear your definition of AGI that hasn't already been met, given computers have been superior to humans at a large variety of tasks since the 90s.

>>endisn+t2
- passing a hard Turing test, adversarial and with a duration of a few weeks and comparing with 10th percentile humans.

- being a roughly human equivalent remote worker.

- having robust common sense on language tasks

- having robust common sense on video, audio and robotics tasks, basically housework androids (robotics is not the difficulty anymore).

Just to name a few. There is a huge gap between what LLMs van do and what you describe!

>>golol+F3
I'm not sure these are good examples. What are the actual tasks involved? These are just as nebulous as "AGI".

I assure you computers already are superior to a human remote worker whose job it is to reliably categorize items or to add numbers. Look no further than the duolingo post that's ironically on the front page at the time of this writing with this very post.

computers have been on par with human translators at some languages since the 2010s. an hypothetical AGI is not god, it still would need exposure, similar to training with LLMs. We're already near the peak with respect to that problem.

I'm not familiar with a "hard turing test." What is that?

>>endisn+x4
More specific tasks:

- Go on Linkedin or fiverr and look at the kinds of jobs being offered remote right now. developer, HR, bureaucrat, therapeut, editor, artist etc. Current AI agents can not do the large majority of these jobs just like that, without supervision. Yes they can perform certain aspects of the job, but not the actual job, people wouldn't hire them.

A hard Turing test is a proper Turing test that's long and not just smalltalk. Intelligence can't be "faked" then. Even harder is when it is performed adversarially, i.e. there is a team of humans that plans which questions it will ask and really digs deep. For example: commonsense reasoning and long-term memory are two pureky textual tasks where LLMs still fail. Yes they do amazingly well in comparison go what we had previously, which was nothing, but if you think they are human equivalent then imo you need to play with LLMs more.

Another hard Turing test would be: Can this agent be a fulfilling long-distance partner? And I'm not talking about fulfilling like current people are having relationships with crude agents. I am talking about really giving you the sense of being understood, learning you, enriching your live etc. We can't do that yet.

Give me an agent and 1 week and I can absolutely figure out whether it is a human or AI.