Sam Altman himself has said it is not AGI unless it can discover novel physics.

https://x.com/burny_tech/status/1725233117055553938

In the tweet Sam Altman is quoted as saying: "If (for example) super intelligence can't discover novel physics I don't think it's a superintelligence. And teaching it to clone the behavior of humans and human text - I don't think that's going to get there. And so there's this question which has been debated in the field for a long time: what do we have to do in addition to a language model to make a system that can go discover new physics?"

I think this is a reasonable criteria for declaring AGI. So can GPT-6 do it? OpenAI says it has helped solve long-standing open problems in mathematics. No word on novel physics.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

Feathercrown 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

AGI and superintelligence are not the same thing

	▲	petilon 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		He says the same about AGI: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/20/podcasts/hard-fork-sam-al... Sam Altman: Let’s say we make an A.I. that is really good, but it can’t go discover novel physics. Would you call that AGI? Kevin Roose (New York Times): I probably would, yeah. Would you? Sam Altman: Well, again, I don’t like the term, but I wouldn’t call that done with the mission.