[knaik94]

I feel like we are at a point where AGI has to be be defined in a different way. This kind of list isn't enough, in my opinion to help actually delineate weak and strong AGI. At a layman's understanding of technology the way a computer works is as equally "magical" as seeing the output of the stable diffusion model. And creating art is a very clear step into "thinking".

For many people AGI is already here. They have Siri and Alexa, AI art, GPT3 based therapy/chat bot, a chat bot that will help them write a book, and "soon" will drive their car for them. The Google Duplex assistant demo where it booked an appointment made it clear to me that for some people, that's the smartest they need AI to be. Anything more is just extra.

I am really excited about how far we're going to push AI in my lifetime, but I also realized that for many scenarios, weak AGI is enough. People will project their own expectations and essentially help fool themselves. I don't know if testing a model to perform the same as a human matters in some ways.

There's one big skill that I personally value the most when it comes to qualifying hard AI, and that's the ability of it to make me laugh based comedic irony. I wonder what that model would look like.

[adastra22]

AGI does not mean “human level.” It means general intelligence. None of the things you mention are that.

[deelowe]

AI has a problem with branding. I don’t know how to fix it, but we need a way to delineate “ai” as in bots in a video game, “machine learning” as in alpha go, and “agi” as in skynet.

These terms are too confusing for most.

[knaik94]

I agree on a technical level, but for many people, the skills demonstrated by these AI models are signs of intelligence. I can understand why they would think that. With everything being "AI" some people may see the technology behind Alexa being the same as the Art Generation. They judge it based on what it's able to do, not how it works. Knowing the difference in the math and architecture doesn't make a difference in that situation. A computer "does AI" independently, after learning on training data, and so they could reasonably argue it has shown basic specialized intelligence.

AGI isn't defined as strictly as it needs to be. The current test, as well as the article, qualify strong AI as being or superseding "human level". Every single category, the AGI is being contrasted with the skills of a human. I am arguing that for some people, the current state of weak AI is useful enough that it could be mistaken for the first steps of strong AI.

[Vetch]

> AGI does not mean “human level.”

The term general intelligence is ambiguous and will mean different things to different people. My understanding of the term AGI is it was coined to differentiate from narrow AI, which AI had diluted over time to mean.

AGI is AI broad and deep enough to be able to learn and perform any task a human can and is at least within the range of top human performers.

The wikipedia definition seems to agree:

> Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can

[adastra22]

General has a strict technical meaning here having to do with skill transfer. A general AI can tackle a problem domain it was not explicitly programmed to handle, characterize its basic features, and apply knowledge it has from other problems in other domains to solve the new problem more efficiently than starting from scratch.