←back to thread

Jagged AGI: o3, Gemini 2.5, and everything after

(www.oneusefulthing.org)
265 points ctoth | 1 comments | 20 Apr 25 14:55 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
fsmv ◴[20 Apr 25 17:31 UTC] No.43745151[source]▶
It's not AGI because it still doesn't understand anything. It can only tell you things that can be found on the internet. These "jagged" results expose the truth that these models have near 0 intelligence.

It is not a simple matter of patching the rough edges. We are fundamentally not using an architecture that is capable of intelligence.

Personally the first time I tried deep research on a real topic it was disastrously incorrect on a key point.

replies(4): >>43745177 #>>43745178 #>>43745251 #>>43745758 #
simonw ◴[20 Apr 25 17:34 UTC] No.43745178[source]▶
Is one of your personal requirements for AGI "never makes a mistake?"
replies(1): >>43745286 #
Arainach ◴[20 Apr 25 17:53 UTC] No.43745286[source]▶
I think determinism is an important element. You can ask the same LLM the same question repeatedly and get different answers - and not just different ways of stating the same answer, very different answers.

If you ask an intelligent being the same question they may occasionally change the precise words they use but their answer will be the same over and over.

replies(4): >>43745344 #>>43745362 #>>43745395 #>>43745545 #
1. beering ◴[20 Apr 25 18:09 UTC] No.43745395{3}[source]▶
A human will give different answers to the same question, so I’m not sure why it’s fair to set a higher bar for an LLM. Or rather, I’m not sure how you would design this test in a way where humans would pass and the best LLM would fail.