> I think we keep changing the goalposts on AGI

Isn't that exactly what you would expect to happen as we learn more about the nature and inner workings of intelligence and refine our expectations?

There's no reason to rest our case with the Turing test.

I hear the "shifting goalposts" riposte a lot, but then it would be very unexciting to freeze our ambitions.

At least in an academic sense, what LLMs aren't is just as interesting as what they are.

▲

breezybottom an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I think the advancement in AI over the last four years has greatly exceeded the advancement in understanding the workings of human intelligence. What paradigm shift has there been recently in that field?

▲

smcg an hour ago | parent [-]

What have we learned that isn't in my textbook from the 90s?

	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	echelon an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> What have we learned that isn't in my textbook from the 90s? Does it matter? We can do countless things people in the 90's would think was black magic. If I showed the kid version of myself what I can do with Opus or Nano Banana or Seedance, let alone broadband and smartphones, I think I'd feel we were living in the Star Trek future. The fact that we can have "conversations" with AI is wild. That we can make movies and websites and games. It's incredible. And there does not seem to be a limit yet.

▲

charcircuit an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I would agree with you if we were talking about trying to replicate some form of general intelligence, but we are talking about creating artificial intelligence.