However most humans can do at least some of the things given they spend the required effort.

Some problems presented needs a very large context and some are not much solvable (e.g. trading) since market responds to traders' actions, as well, making it effectively an oracle problem (of computation).

On the other hand, we must be aware that these models are static, and they indeed stop when nobody asks something or requests an action from them. However, brains in nature never stops. Wonder, daydream, sleep, self-evolve, clean up and eliminate memories and views and much more.

I haven't met a person who doesn't wonder about things.

They can't, by definition, have the A part btw.

I'm guessing their defn of AGI is something like the sum total of all humans' abilities? Still though some of those tasks (e.g. beat an index fund) may very well be impossible, and worse yet a lot of those tasks are not coherently defined.

I understand that what it came up with sounds impressive (especially since I know 0 about Myanmar), but on the topics I do know about its analysis routinely have very fundamental problems (even this Myanmar analysis has % that add up to > 100). There's a chance it's just parroting the majority opinion on Myanmar, or making stuff up (and perhaps you could ask it to write a strongly worded opinion in the other direction that would sound equally plausible).

For example I asked it to do a full analysis on the AI bubble, and a full analysis on the risks of Glyphosate, and it came up with a lot of things that sounded credible, but within a few minutes of questing was admitting it hadn't even really checked for internal consistency in its positions, and even doing a 180. It certainly was much faster at gathering sources and reading but it fundamentally doesn't seem very effective at creating a consistent worldview.

And of course the funny thing is it says it did a 180 on one of these topics, great, except whatever it concluded will be discarded because it cannot learn what isn't in training data. It's just bonkers to me pretend this is AGI, it probably couldn't even hold it's own in this very discussion.

I don't think that's strictly true, as I can give it a new gui or tui program it wasn't trained on and it will learn it. Unless you're talking about general abilities like sight, but the same is somewhat true of humans.

Humans cannot do tasks they are not "trained" for.

But you have to acknowledge how uneven the playing field is. The AI has read every book that's ever been written, and can spend hours of compute time in a few seconds.

I think if a person had those same advantages (e.g. could spend 5 hours thinking about what to say next) we could all hold outstanding conversations, or if we had read every book ever written I think many of us could write a very popular book, if we could read every singe company's P&L statement in a few seconds we could invest better than an index fund.

What I'm pointing out here is that these models appear to be intelligent when they really are simply unimagineably knowledgeable. When you drop the time-constraints it starts to become more and more apparent that human intelligence scales better with time than AI does (much in the same way AI can burp out tons of code but make your codebase entirely illegible within a matter of months).

Perhaps to simplify: my notion of intelligence is how much can you deduce with a constant set of starting context

I would be willing to bet that any human for which we spend $100billion - $3 trillion (depending if you want to count single corporations or global totals) on in an attempt to make them as capable as possible would be able to reach all of those levels.

> You want a computer program to be able to take a single phrase and execute decade long journies?

In my opinion that is exactly the point missing from AGI: the fact that you still need to prompt it. As long as you have to ask for something, is not general.

>You want a computer program to be able to take a single phrase and execute decade long journies? > Who will be responsible for the outputs and side effects of such a closed loop system?

Itself. That's the point. We can do it. Until it can met that bar, it ain't AGI. That's always been the bar.

I fail to see how what you describe is any better than the old autocomplete-on-steroids comparison. Could the human mind learn to spell every word properly? Yes. Do most (or any) do it? No. Does that mean a human can't?

I think what OP was drawing a comparison to is that AI right now could not come up with an award winning novel from the spark of some creative notion and working up from there, as opposed to just mashing together what has already been done and calling it a day.

The bottomless pit supervisor was quite funny.

I hardly think it’s fair to label an objection so old that Turing included it (and discussed it at length) in the list of objections to thinking machines in 1950 “moving the goalposts.”

> These arguments take the form, “I grant you that you can make machines do all the things you have mentioned but you will never be able to make one to do X”. Numerous features X are suggested in this connexion. I offer a selection:

> Be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly (p. 448), have initiative, have a sense of humour, tell right from wrong, make mistakes (p. 448), fall in love, enjoy strawberries and cream (p. 448), make some one fall in love with it, learn from experience (pp. 456 f.), use words properly, be the subject of its own thought (p. 449), have as much diversity of behaviour as a man, do something really new (p. 450). (Some of these disabilities are given special consideration as indicated by the page numbers.)

(emphasis added).

Just because a condition is new to you doesn’t imply moving the goalpost. People have been putting forward continual learning and similar conditions like autonomy since 1950s.

The bar must be underground if things humans do all the time are considered "superintelligence"