←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: 0.205s | 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 #
dgs_sgd ◴[20 Apr 25 21:43 UTC] No.43746728[source]▶
This is actually how a supreme court justice defined the test for obscenity.

> The phrase "I know it when I see it" was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio

replies(1): >>43746871 #
1. sweetjuly ◴[20 Apr 25 22:11 UTC] No.43746871[source]▶
The reason why it's so famous though (and why some people tend to use it in a tongue in cheek manner) is because "you know it when you see it" is a hilariously unhelpful and capricious threshold, especially when coming from the Supreme Court. For rights which are so vital to the fabric of the country, the Supreme Court recommending we hinge free speech on—essentially—unquantifiable vibes is equal parts bizarre and out of character.