←back to thread

265 points ctoth | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mellosouls ◴[] 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 #
daxfohl ◴[] No.43746657[source]
Until you can boot one up, give it access to a VM video and audio feeds and keyboard and mouse interfaces, give it an email and chat account, tell it where the company onboarding docs are and expect them to be a productive team member, they're not AGI. So long as we need special protocols like MCP and A2A, rather than expecting them to figure out how to collaborate like a human, they're not AGI.

The first step, my guess, is going to be the ability to work through github issues like a human, identifying which issues have high value, asking clarifying questions, proposing reasonable alternatives, knowing when to open a PR, responding to code review, merging or abandoning when appropriate. But we're not even very close to that yet. There's some of it, but from what I've seen most instances where this has been successful are low level things like removing old feature flags.

replies(3): >>43746758 #>>43747095 #>>43747467 #
toomim ◴[] No.43747467[source]
You can't do that with most of the world's human population. Does that imply that most humans haven't reached AGI?
replies(2): >>43747633 #>>43757001 #
fragmede ◴[] No.43747633[source]
Where A stands for artificial, I don't think most humans have "reached" that, no.
replies(1): >>43749285 #
1. Closi ◴[] No.43749285{3}[source]
You presumably understand the posters underlying point though - that the definition of 'general intelligence' does not need to be 'at above-average human level' and humans can be intelligent without being able to use a computer or do some sort of job on a VM.