[bidirectional]

How is GPT-4 not AGI? It is generally intelligent and passes the Turing test. When did AGI come to mean some godlike being that can enslave us? I think I can have a more intellectualy meaningful conversation with ChatGPT than I could with the vast majority of humanity. That is insane progress from where we were 18 months ago.

[pixl97]

I think this is where the term "sparks of AGI" comes from.

What we are missing is loop functions and more reliable short term memory.

Of course I also believe the term AGI is far too course as it covers a wide range of behaviors that not all individuals posses. We need to have a set of measures for these functions to measure AGIs capabilities.

[golol]

AGI is general intelligence at human level, which GPT-4 does not have. Passing the Turing test is ill-defined as it entirely depends on the timscale. I'm sure Turing gave some time limit originally but we do not have to stick to that. The Turing test for a conversation of complexity perhaps ~1 minute may have been passed, but giving several hours of interaction with any chatbot that exists it becomes easy to distinguish it from a human, especially if one enters the conversation perpared.

[creer]

Even with that definition you would have to pick a "human level". That's a very broad range.

[FireBeyond]

Ask it to solve a moderately complex mathematical equation that you describe to it.

Ask it to solve a logical riddle that is only a minor variation with respect to items or words to existing issues (i.e. it's not something that is in its model).

It is unable to do either.

That's why it's not AGI.

[bidirectional]

What % of people alive can do either? We have a system which beats the vast majority of humanity.

[bart_spoon]

Many children (and adults for that matter) would fail to qualify according to that definition of intelligence.