alt Hacker NewsThat’s the problem with the discussions on AI. No one defines the terms they use.
If we define AGI as an AI not doing a preset task but can be used for general purpose, then we already have that. If we define it as human level intelligence at _every_ task, then some humans fail to be an AGI. If we define AGI as a magic algorithm that does every task autonomously and successfully then that thing may not exist at all, even inside our brains.
When the AGI term was first coined they probably meant something like HAL 9000. We have that now (and HAL gaining self-awareness or refusing commands are just for dramatic effect and not necessary). Goalposts are not stable in this game.
Replies
> some humans fail to be an AGI
All humans fail to be AGI, by definition.
It is not just AGI that is poorly defined. Plain AI is moving goalposts too. When the A* search algorithm was introduced in the late 60s, that was considered AI, when SVM (support vector machines) and KNN (K nearest neighbor) were new, they were AI. And so on.
These days it is neural networks and transformer models for language in particular that people mean when they say unqualified AI.
It is very hard to have a meaningful discussion when different parties mean different things with the same words.