[shock-value]

> ... these large language models are already intelligent enough to matter.

I'm definitely not contesting that.

I've always considered the idea of "AGI" to mean something of the holy grail of machine learning -- the point at which there is no real point in pursuing further advances in artificial intelligence because the AI itself will discover and apply such augmentations using its own capabilities.

I have seen no evidence that these transformer models would be able to do this, but if the current models can do so do then perhaps I will eat my words. (Doing this would likely mean that GPT-4 would need to propose, implement, and empirically test some fundamental architectural advancements in both multimodal and reinforcement learning.)

By the way, many researchers are equally convinced that these models are in fact not AGI -- that includes the head of OpenAI.

[famouswaffles]

See what you're describing is much closer to ASI. At least, it used to be. This is the big problem I have. The constant post shifting is maddening.

AGI went from meaning Generally Intelligent to as smart as Human experts and then now smarter than all experts combined. You'll forgive me if I no longer want to play this game.

I know some researchers disagree. That's fine. The point I was really getting at is that no researcher worth his salt can call these models narrow anymore. There's absolutely nothing narrow about GPT and the like. So if you think it's not AGI, you've come to accept it no longer means general intelligence.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> The point I was really getting at is that no researcher worth his salt can call these models narrow anymore.

Are you talking about large language models (LLMs)? Because those are narrow, and brittle, and dumb as bricks, and I don't care a jot about your "No True Scotsman". LLMs can only operate on text, they can only output text that demonstrates "reasoning" when their training text has instances of text detailing the solutions of reasoning problems similar to the ones they're asked to solve, and their output depends entirely on their input: you change the prompt and the "AGI" becomes a drooling idiot, and v.v.

That's no sign of intelligence and you should re-evaluate your unbridled enthusiasm. You believe in magick, and you are loudly proclaiming your belief in magick. Examples abound in history that magick doesn't work, and only science does.