>I would bet all of my assets of my life that AGI will not be seen in the lifetime of anyone reading this message right now. That includes anyone reading this message long after the lives of those reading it on its post date have ended.

By almost any definition available during the 90s GPT-5 Thinking/Pro would pretty much qualify. The idea that we are somehow not going to make any progress for the next century seems absurd. Do you have any actual justification for why you believe this? Every lab is saying they see a clear path to improving capabilities and theres been nothing shown by any research I'm aware of to justify doubting that.

▲

jb1991 a day ago | parent | next [-]

The fact is that no matter how "advanced" AI seems to get, it always falls short and does not satisfy what we think of as true AI. It's always a case of "it's going to get better", and it's been said like this for decades now. People have been predicting AGI for a lot longer than the time I predict we will not attain it.

LLMs are cool and fun and impressive (and can be dangerous), but they are not any form of AGI -- they satisfy the "artificial", and that's about it.

GPT by any definition of AGI is not AGI. You are ignoring the word "general" in AGI. GPT is extremely niche in what it does.

▲

vonneumannstan a day ago | parent [-]

>GPT by any definition of AGI is not AGI. You are ignoring the word "general" in AGI. GPT is extremely niche in what it does.

Definitions in the 90s basically required passing the Turing Test which was probably passed by GPT3.5. Current definitions are too broad but something like 'better than the average human at most tasks' seems to be basically passed by say GPT5, definitions like 'better than all humans at all tasks' or 'better than all humans at all economically useful tasks' are closer to Superintelligence.

▲

jb1991 a day ago | parent [-]

The Turing Test was never about AGI.

▲

nearbuy a day ago | parent [-]

That's pretty much exactly what Alan Turing made the Turing test for. From the Wikipedia entry:

> The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1949, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to that of a human.

> The test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'"

> This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against the major objections to the proposition that "machines can think".

▲

jb1991 a day ago | parent [-]

Cherry-picking is not a meaningful contribution to this discussion. You are ignoring the entire section on that page called “Weaknesses”.

	▲	nearbuy 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Cherry-picking? You made a completely factually wrong statement. There was no cherry-picking. You said the Turing test was never about AGI. You didn't say it has weaknesses. Even if it were the worst test ever made, it was still about AGI. Ignoring the entire article including the "Strengths" section and only looking at "Weaknesses" is the only cherry-picking happening. And if you read the Weaknesses section, you'll see very little of it is relevant to whether the Turing test demonstrates AGI. Only 1 of the 9 subsections is related to this. The other weaknesses listed include that intelligent entities may still fail the Turing test, that if the entity tested remains silent there is no way to evaluate it, and that making AI that imitates humans well may lower wages for humans.

▲

port3000 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

They have to say that, or there'll be a loud sucking sound and hundreds of billions in capital will be withdrawn overnight

▲

vonneumannstan a day ago | parent [-]

Ok that's great do you have evidence suggesting scaling is actually plateauing or that capabilities of GPT6 and Claude 4.5 Opus won't be better than models now?

	▲	jb1991 a day ago \| parent [-]
		You are suggesting, in your reference to scaling, that this is a game of quantity. It is not.