> What the hell is general intelligence anyway?

OpenAI used to define it as "a highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work."

Now they used a Level 1-5 scale: https://briansolis.com/2024/08/ainsights-openai-defines-five...

So we can say AGI is "AI that can do the work of Organizations":

> These “Organizations” can manage and execute all functions of a business, surpassing traditional human-based operations in terms of efficiency and productivity. This stage represents the pinnacle of AI development, where AI can autonomously run complex organizational structures.

There's nothing general about AI-as-CEO.

That's the opposite of generality. It may well be the opposite of intelligence.

An intelligent system/individual reliably and efficiently produces competent, desirable, novel outcomes in some domain, avoiding failures that are incompetent, non-novel, and self-harming.

Traditional computing is very good at this for a tiny range of problems. You get efficient, very fast, accurate, repeatable automation for a certain small set of operation types. You don't get invention or novelty.

AGI will scale this reliably across all domains - business, law, politics, the arts, philosophy, economics, all kinds of engineering, human relationships. And others. With novelty.

LLMs are clearly a long way from this. They're unreliable, they're not good at novelty, and a lot of what they do isn't desirable.

They're barely in sight of human levels of achievement - not a high bar.

The current state of LLMs tells us more about how little we expect from human intelligence than about what AGI could be capable of.

Apparently OpenAI now just defines it monetarily as "when we can make $100 billion from it." [0]

[0] https://gizmodo.com/leaked-documents-show-openai-has-a-very-...