An apt analogy. A human is a general intelligence that can fly with an F-16.

What happens when we put an artificial general intelligence in an F-16? That's what happened here with this proof.

Not really. A completely unintelligent autopilot can fly an F-16. You cannot assume general intelligence from scaffolded tool-using success in a single narrow area.

▲

threethirtytwo 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I didn’t assume agi.

I assumed extreme performance of a general AI matching and exceeding average human intelligence when placed in an F16 or an equivalent cockpit specified for conducting math proofs.

That’s not agi at all. I don’t think you understand that LLMs will never hit agi even when they exceed human intelligence in all applicable domains.

The main reason is they don’t feel emotions. Even if the definition of agi doesn’t currently encompass emotions people like you will move the goal posts and shift the definition until it does. So as AI improves, the threshold will be adjusted to make sure they will never reach agi as it’s an existential and identity crisis to many people to admit that an AI is better than them on all counts.

▲

mkl 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> I didn’t assume agi.

You literally said:

>>> What happens when we put an artificial general intelligence in an F-16? That's what happened here with this proof.

You're claiming I said a lot of things I didn't; everything you seem to be stating about me in this comment is false.

	▲	threethirtytwo 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's called a hypothetical. I didn't say that we put an AGI into an F-16. I asked what the outcome would be. And the outcome is pretty similar. Please read carefully before making a false statement. >You're claiming I said a lot of things I didn't; everything you seem to be stating about me in this comment is false. Apologies. I thought you were being deliberate. What really happened is you made a mistake. Also I never said anything about you. Please read carefully.