| ▲ | petesergeant 3 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
Ten years ago people would have unambiguously identified what we had today as AGI. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Jensson 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
As long as you don't see thousands of AI businesses that are run entirely without humans people will reject the idea that they are AGI. People could easily do that today if these models were AGI since its not hard to put them in a loop and tell them to run a business, so we know when that threshold is reached. And if the AI isn't general enough to handle every part of a business well then you will not convince people that its AGI. This hasn't changed from 10 years ago, this level was always what people imagined about the future of AI. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | xpct 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
What does that even mean? They would have tried the models, noticed their limitations, and decide it's not AGI. Same as today. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | hsuduebc2 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Two hundred years ago people would have unambiguously identified what we had today as mAGIc. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | whilenot-dev 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Unambiguously? | |||||||||||||||||