[rstuart4133]

> Lets all arbitrarily agree AGI is here. I can't even be bothered discussing what the definition of AGI is.

There is a definition of AGI the AI companies are using to justify their valuation. It's not what most people would call AGI but it does that job well enough, and you will care when it arrives.

They define it as an AI that can develop other AI's faster than the best team of human engineers. Once they build one of those in house they outpace the competition and become the winner that takes all. Personally I think it's more likely they will all achieve it at a similar time. That would mean the the race will continues, accelerating as fast as they can build data centres and power plants to feed them.

It will impact everyone, because the already dizzying pace of the current advances will accelerate. I don't know about you, but I'm having trouble figuring out what my job will be next year as it is.

An AI that just develops other AI's could hardly be called "general" in my book, but my opinion doesn't count for much.

[hi_hi]

May I ask, what experiences are you personally having with LLMs right now that is leading you to the conclusion that they will become "intelligent" enough to identify, organise, and build advancing improvements to themselves, without any human interaction in the near future (1 - 2 years lets say)?

[rstuart4133]

> May I ask, what experiences are you personally having with LLMs right now that is leading you to the conclusion that they will become "intelligent" enough to identify, organise, and build advancing improvements to themselves, without any human interaction in the near future (1 - 2 years lets say)?

None, as I don't develop LLM's.

I wasn't saying I think they will succeed, but I think it is worth noting their AGI ambitions are not as grand as the term implies. Nonetheless, if they achieve them, the world will change.