←back to thread

Jagged AGI: o3, Gemini 2.5, and everything after

(www.oneusefulthing.org)
265 points ctoth | 4 comments | 20 Apr 25 14:55 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mellosouls ◴[20 Apr 25 17:44 UTC] No.43745240[source]▶
The capabilities of AI post gpt3 have become extraordinary and clearly in many cases superhuman.

However (as the article admits) there is still no general agreement of what AGI is, or how we (or even if we can) get there from here.

What there is is a growing and often naïve excitement that anticipates it as coming into view, and unfortunately that will be accompanied by the hype-merchants desperate to be first to "call it".

This article seems reasonable in some ways but unfortunately falls into the latter category with its title and sloganeering.

"AGI" in the title of any article should be seen as a cautionary flag. On HN - if anywhere - we need to be on the alert for this.

replies(13): >>43745398 #>>43745959 #>>43746159 #>>43746204 #>>43746319 #>>43746355 #>>43746427 #>>43746447 #>>43746522 #>>43746657 #>>43746801 #>>43749837 #>>43795216 #
jjeaff ◴[20 Apr 25 19:33 UTC] No.43745959[source]▶
I suspect AGI will be one of those things that you can't describe it exactly, but you'll know it when you see it.
replies(7): >>43746043 #>>43746058 #>>43746080 #>>43746093 #>>43746651 #>>43746728 #>>43746951 #
NitpickLawyer ◴[20 Apr 25 19:47 UTC] No.43746058[source]▶
> but you'll know it when you see it.

I agree, but with the caveat that it's getting harder and harder with all the hype / doom cycles and all the goalpost moving that's happening in this space.

IMO if you took gemini2.5 / claude / o3 and showed it to people from ten / twenty years ago, they'd say that it is unmistakably AGI.

replies(4): >>43746116 #>>43746460 #>>43746560 #>>43746705 #
1. mac-mc ◴[20 Apr 25 21:10 UTC] No.43746560[source]▶
When it can replace a polite, diligent, experienced 120 IQ human in all tasks. So it has a consistent long-term narrative memory, doesn't "lose the plot" as you interact longer and longer with it, can pilot robots to do physical labor without much instruction (what is current state of the art is not that, a trained human will still do much better, can drive cars, etc), generate images without goofy non-human style errors, etc.
replies(1): >>43746787 #
2. NitpickLawyer ◴[20 Apr 25 21:55 UTC] No.43746787[source]▶
> experienced 120 IQ human in all tasks.

Well, that's 91th percentile already. I know the terms are hazy, but that seems closer to ASI than AGI from that perspective, no?

I think I do agree with you on the other points.

replies(2): >>43747163 #>>43748221 #
3. ben_w ◴[20 Apr 25 22:59 UTC] No.43747163[source]▶
Indeed, on both. Even IQ 85 would make a painful dent in the economy via unemployment statistics. But the AI we have now is spikey, in ways that make it trip up over mistakes even slighly below average humans would not make, even though it can also do Maths Olympiad puzzles, the bar exam, leetcode, etc.
4. mac-mc ◴[21 Apr 25 03:07 UTC] No.43748221[source]▶
The emotional way that humans think when buying products is similarly unfair. Only the 90th percentile is truly 'satisfactory'. The implied question is when would Joe Average and everyone else stop moving the goal posts to the question, "Do we have AI yet"?

ASI is, by definition, Superintelligence, which means it is beyond practical human IQ capacity. So something like 200 IQ.

Again, you might call it 'unfair', but that's when it will also stop having goal posts being moved; otherwise, Joe Midwit will call it 'it's only as smart as some smart dudes I know'.