undefined | Better HN

0 pointsraydiatian2y ago0 comments

> It's not cheating for people so asserting that it's cheating for machines just seems like goal post shifting more than anything.

I genuinely appreciate this argument, and was considering it myself. In which case, I’d almost argue that we “have” already achieved AGI, and maybe it’s just not that thrilling.

0 comments

famouswaffles2y ago

If you define agi to be artificial and generally intelligent at the human level then yes we have.

It seems though that definitions of agi have since shifted to "better than human experts in all tasks" in which case no...not yet.

raydiatianOP2y ago

Isn’t that artificial super intelligence?

famouswaffles2y ago

the posts keep shifting yes. the new definition of agi is much closer to super intelligence. However, depending on how close to experts the model is, there's room for more.

If the model is basically on par with experts then it's still human fallible. But...suppose a general intelligence that is the level at each task as the chess engines of today is at chess.

Basically the, "Oh you thought that was a mistake ?, no you just didn't understand the program" level of intelligence even for the smartest of humans.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsraydiatian2y ago0 comments

> It's not cheating for people so asserting that it's cheating for machines just seems like goal post shifting more than anything.

I genuinely appreciate this argument, and was considering it myself. In which case, I’d almost argue that we “have” already achieved AGI, and maybe it’s just not that thrilling.

0 comments

famouswaffles2y ago

If you define agi to be artificial and generally intelligent at the human level then yes we have.

It seems though that definitions of agi have since shifted to "better than human experts in all tasks" in which case no...not yet.

raydiatianOP2y ago

Isn’t that artificial super intelligence?

famouswaffles2y ago

the posts keep shifting yes. the new definition of agi is much closer to super intelligence. However, depending on how close to experts the model is, there's room for more.

If the model is basically on par with experts then it's still human fallible. But...suppose a general intelligence that is the level at each task as the chess engines of today is at chess.

Basically the, "Oh you thought that was a mistake ?, no you just didn't understand the program" level of intelligence even for the smartest of humans.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse