undefined | Better HN

0 pointsscarmig3y ago0 comments

Do you mean that an AGI is an AI that can do everything any human can do?

That's a reasonable goal, but it's also not what people were aiming for historically. It's also very expansive: if human level intelligence means outperforming in every field every human that ever lived, that's a high bar to meet. Indeed, it means that no humans have ever achieved human-level intelligence.

0 comments

erichocean3y ago

GP didn't say anything about "outperforming" all humans everywhere all the time.

Just that AGI must be a replacement for a human for a particular job, for all jobs that are typically performed by humans (such as the humans you would hire to build a tech startup). It's fine to have "speciality" AGIs that are tuned for job X or job Y--just like some people are more suited to job X or job Y.

Which is pretty fair.

scarmigOP3y ago

They did say "An AGI is an AI that can do everything a human can do, period."

And what you're arguing for is effectively the same: an AI (maybe with some distilled specialty models) that can perform roles of everything from customer service rep to analysts to researchers to the entire C-suite to high skilled professionals like CPAs and lawyers. There are zero humans alive who can do all of those things simultaneously. Most humans would struggle with a single one. It's perfectly fine for you to hold that as the standard of when something will impress you as an AGI, but it's absolutely a moved goalpost.

It also doesn't matter much now anyway: we've gotten to the point where the proof is in the pudding. The stage is now AI-skeptics saying "AI will never be able to do X," followed by some model or another being released that can do X six months later and the AI-skeptic saying "well what about Y?"

FooBarWidget3y ago

The AI skeptics should then say "AIs can never do the plumbing for my toilet". There is a huge shortage of plumbers in this country.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse