Nvidia's Jensen Huang says 'AGI has arrived' and congratulates OpenAI

https://danluu.com/zitron/

HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49526069

Shower thought: I wonder if this whole "OpenAI is in serious financial difficulty" thing is a psyop so people will relax and avoid doing what's necessary to stop them.

Is this based on fact or your speculation?

But certainly it is not unbiased

And I would argue LLMs aren't either. A lot of economically valuable tasks involve manual labor. Can LLMs fix your plumbing?

It would help if OpenAI would define what 'most' means and give some examples.

Remember they said their LLMs are like a phd level brains? It's just hype and bullsh!ttery. Don't get me wrong, genAI is great and really useful, but it's not AGI imo. And there is no consensus what AGI means, so the industry should come up with an agreed definition first.

[0] To me autonomous means self directed, e.g. we humans look at things and then decide which problem or thing to work on. LLMs don't do that. We have to tell them. Yes they might work on a sub task autonomously, but still require human input later on (review), because we can't fully trust its output is correct.

Try to teach an urban 17 year old how to drive a car. It's gonna be hilarious.

Yet still, a lot of the "haha this is just Silicon Valley bullshit" comments sound like copium to me. 2 years ago I was so sick of the hype, I thought LLM-based tech was fundamentally limited and that it would hit a wall. I'll eat my words and say I was wrong. The behaviors displayed in the recent hacking reports and the behaviors displayed by Astra make me believe that even if you don't think this is evidence of AGI, surely it's coming in the near future. I.e. when you say "The vast majority of "generally intelligent" 17 year old humans on this planet can be taught to drive a car in 10-20 hours - can any AGI system do that?", it seems like autonomous systems can be taught to drive a car now, perhaps not in 10-20 hours, but if the only difference is the amount of time it takes (say a week vs. 10-20 hours), surely that mark will fall in the next few years at least.

My point is that saying "Hah, this is BS, we're not at AGI now!" (however you define AGI), but with the tech clearly advancing at a fast rate and showing signs it will hit whatever metric I've heard people come up with in the next few years, does not bode well for human supremacy.

"Where can you find another non-linear servo-mechanism weighing only 150 pounds and having great adaptability, that can be produced so cheaply by completely unskilled labor?"

—Scott Crossfield, 1954 <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/02/01/computer/>

The average 17 year old is not formalizing Fermat's Last Theorem proofs either? The frontier is spiky, but it's AGI.

I swear at the rate the goal posts are moving we're going to have to start factoring in relativity if we want to know where the hell they actually stand.

AGI does not entail "personhood" at all.

I don't think the American oligarchy even bothers with keeping up appearances anymore, so, good luck with that! (Also, I fully agree with you, and it's especially infuriating as all this was clearly coming from miles away. Next up is privatizing the losses when the unsound financing of it all comes crashing down).

Buddy, silicon valley is going to ram this down your throat so hard it might even come out your bottom, there is absolutely zero chance anyone is going to be slowing down developing anything if there is a chance it can make more money.

So what? You guys can keep moving the goalposts, until it reaches full human intelligence (and not in a small niche), it is not AGI.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49207797

I am not aware of a complete operational definition, but it would not be that difficult to build a good tentative one. I have mentioned many different requirements several times.

One non-abstract definition is in the "10 points" here: https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/where-will-ai-be-at-the-en...

Edit: "definition" (the 10 points above) that is cannot be that of "AGI", really. AGI just needs to actually implement Intelligence and requires very many features that are not there today. The list from Marcus is about "Artificial Super General Intelligence" - not the same thing.

You can implement a replacement for Intellligence - that is AI;

you can implement Intelligence - that is AGI;

you can implement Intelligence of very high value output: that is "ASGI" (or similar).

So now we'll need a new acronym.

Why. A figure with incentives in making a preposterous statement is reported making it, and the specific facts do not seem to mirror the statement. What is surprising in the reaction.