Agreed. Dogs & 4 year olds & LLM's all have general intelligence. Defining "AGI" to mean "superhuman intelligence" seems ridiculous to me. The Turing test was the standard benchmark for so long, but now that an LLM can pass the Turing test we've moved the goal posts.
The Turing test was never a standard benchmark. It was common in pop science coverage, but no AI researcher (including Turing himself!) ever proposed it as a useful test of intelligence. It was an illustration by Turing that we can meaningfully talk about a machine thinking in the first place. We've known for over half a century since ELIZA that the ability to carry on a plausible natural language conversation is much more narrow than it intuitively seems.
What study are you referring to here? The ones I've seen don't particularly resemble anything Turing described. The preprint from UCSD got heavy coverage in the popular press but its headline claim is an elementary statistical mistake, modifying the test so it's no longer a binary comparison but still treating 50% as a meaningful pass threshold. It hasn't yet passed peer review nine months later, and I'm cautiously optimistic that it never will.
I agree in my view the modern language models already processes general intelligence: they are better at some tasks and worse than others compared to human, but in principle they can tackle any problem (if given agency like tool access)
this is probably a religious question so people will not be convinced of intelligent machines even if they have an EQ and IQ of 200 because they don't work the same way human cells do I suppose.
Comments
Agreed. Dogs & 4 year olds & LLM's all have general intelligence. Defining "AGI" to mean "superhuman intelligence" seems ridiculous to me. The Turing test was the standard benchmark for so long, but now that an LLM can pass the Turing test we've moved the goal posts.
The Turing test was never a standard benchmark. It was common in pop science coverage, but no AI researcher (including Turing himself!) ever proposed it as a useful test of intelligence. It was an illustration by Turing that we can meaningfully talk about a machine thinking in the first place. We've known for over half a century since ELIZA that the ability to carry on a plausible natural language conversation is much more narrow than it intuitively seems.
What study are you referring to here? The ones I've seen don't particularly resemble anything Turing described. The preprint from UCSD got heavy coverage in the popular press but its headline claim is an elementary statistical mistake, modifying the test so it's no longer a binary comparison but still treating 50% as a meaningful pass threshold. It hasn't yet passed peer review nine months later, and I'm cautiously optimistic that it never will.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40386571
I agree in my view the modern language models already processes general intelligence: they are better at some tasks and worse than others compared to human, but in principle they can tackle any problem (if given agency like tool access)
this is probably a religious question so people will not be convinced of intelligent machines even if they have an EQ and IQ of 200 because they don't work the same way human cells do I suppose.