I don't think AGI is right around the corner

Anyone who claims that a poorly definined concept, AGI, is right around the corner is most likely:

- trying to sell something

- high on their own stories

- high on exogenous compounds

- all of the above

LLMs are good at language. They are OK summarizers of text by design but not good at logic. Very poor at spatial reasoning and as a result poor at connecting concepts together.

Just ask any of the crown jewel LLM models "What's the biggest unsolved problem in the [insert any] field".

The usual result is a pop-science-level article but with ton of subtle yet critical mistakes! Even worse, the answer sounds profound on the surface. In reality, it's just crap.

I'll offer a definition of AGI:

An AI (a computer program) that is better at [almost] any task than 5% of the human specialists in that field has achieved AGI.

Or, stated another way, if 5% of humans are incapable of performing any intellectual job better than an AI can, then that AI has achieved AGI.

Note, I am not saying that an AI that is better than humans at one particular thing has achieved AGI, because it is not "general". I'm saying that if a single AI is better at all intellectual tasks than some humans, the AI has achieved AGI.

The 5th percentile of humans deserves the label of "intelligent", even if they are not the most intelligent, (I'd say all humans deserve the label "intelligent") and if an AI is able to perform all intellectual tasks better than such a person, the AI has achieved AGI.

I think your definition is flawed.

Take the Artificial out of AGI. What is GI, and do the majority of humans have it? If so, then why is your definition of AGI far stricter than the definition of Human GI?

My definition is a high-bar that is undeniably AGI. My personal opinion is that there are some lower-bars that are also AGI. I actually think it's fair to call LLMs from GPT3 onward AGI.

But, when it comes to the lower-bars, we can spend a lot of time arguing over the definition of a single term, which isn't especially helpful.