I don't remember one specific moment, but I was fairly impressed with ChatGPT from the first time I started interacting with it. Was I ready to call it "AGI"? No, absolutely not. But it was clear that it was something new, and it was also intuitively obvious to me that "this AI is as bad today as it will ever be" and that predicting the rate of change would be difficult.

The more I use these things, the more I'm 100% convinced that it makes sense to say they are "intelligent" (for some meaning of "intelligent"). AGI or "human level intelligence"? Still no[1]. But some kind of intelligence. And I'm quite happy to allow that there can be "intelligence" that doesn't work anything at all like human intelligence, so arguments of the form "this isn't real intelligence", etc, etc. carry very (very) little weight with me. I've actually been sitting on a half written blog post on this very topic for a while, titled "The Marquee Sign Says 'Artificial' Intelligence"[2]. Finding time to finish it has been the challenge.

And before somebody says "Use AI to write it for you". Nah. I am generally what you might call "pro AI" and / or an "AI enthusiast" but I still draw lines. I'll use AI for research, for outlining, for brainstorming, etc. sure. But I have a hard-line stance against letting AI fundamentally write for me. I want anything that goes out with my name associated with it to have my genuine voice.

[1]: I like the term "jagged intelligence" that Demis Hassabis has been using. That is to say, the bounds of the intelligence are jagged or spiky: very intelligent in certain areas, much less so in others.

[2]: for any old-skool pro-wrestling fans, yes, that is an intentional nod to "Double A" Arn Anderson and his "The marquee sign says 'wrestling'" catchphrase. :-)