I see no goal post here. That argument was true when it came to game playing. Tic-tac-toe, then checkers, then chess, then go, then Jeopardy…
The bar kept getting raised because we kept saying yes there’s an intelligent game called x and once we beat it that is a sign of intelligence.
No one ever claimed that these word salad generating, suda racist, plagiarism machines that are frequently wrong were actual AGI.
If a goal post is to be established, it’s got to be much more robust than the bullshiy that we’re seeing now.
When you said “Is AI or isn’t AI”… people are welcome to say these things but ML is firmly in the actual field of AI, so those arguments don’t actually matter.
AI isn’t any one thing. It’s an broad term used in computer science to refer to any system designed to perform a cognitive task that would normally require human intelligence. The chess opponent on an old Atari console is an AI. It’s an intelligent system - but only narrowly so. That’s called “narrow” or “weak” AI.
It can still have superhuman abilities, but only within the specific task it was built for - like playing chess or generating language.
A large language model like ChatGPT is also narrow AI. It’s exceptionally good at what it was designed to do: generate natural-sounding language. What people expect from it, though, isn’t narrow intelligence - it’s general intelligence. The ability to apply cognitive skills across a wide range of domains the way a human can. That’s something LLMs simply can’t do - at least not yet. Artificial General Intelligence is the end goal for many AI companies, but LLMs are not generally intelligent. However they still fall under the umbrella of AI as a broad category of systems.
“Super AGI” is called Artificial Superintelligence (ASI).
I think the goalposts will keep moving.
First they proclaimed AI. It was pointed out LLMs aren’t really AI.
Then they said, “No that’s AGI”.
Eventually someone will claim AGI. That will be refuted.
Then they will say, “No that’s Super AGI!”, or some other nonsense.
Rinse and repeat.
I see no goal post here. That argument was true when it came to game playing. Tic-tac-toe, then checkers, then chess, then go, then Jeopardy…
The bar kept getting raised because we kept saying yes there’s an intelligent game called x and once we beat it that is a sign of intelligence.
No one ever claimed that these word salad generating, suda racist, plagiarism machines that are frequently wrong were actual AGI.
If a goal post is to be established, it’s got to be much more robust than the bullshiy that we’re seeing now.
When you said “Is AI or isn’t AI”… people are welcome to say these things but ML is firmly in the actual field of AI, so those arguments don’t actually matter.
AI isn’t any one thing. It’s an broad term used in computer science to refer to any system designed to perform a cognitive task that would normally require human intelligence. The chess opponent on an old Atari console is an AI. It’s an intelligent system - but only narrowly so. That’s called “narrow” or “weak” AI.
It can still have superhuman abilities, but only within the specific task it was built for - like playing chess or generating language.
A large language model like ChatGPT is also narrow AI. It’s exceptionally good at what it was designed to do: generate natural-sounding language. What people expect from it, though, isn’t narrow intelligence - it’s general intelligence. The ability to apply cognitive skills across a wide range of domains the way a human can. That’s something LLMs simply can’t do - at least not yet. Artificial General Intelligence is the end goal for many AI companies, but LLMs are not generally intelligent. However they still fall under the umbrella of AI as a broad category of systems.
“Super AGI” is called Artificial Superintelligence (ASI).