[mdp2021]

> considered Artificial Intelligence anymore

That is just the confusion between AI and AGI - which may seem to be peaking for some reason (in the past few days it seemed like a zombie apocalypse). The so-called "AI effect" is said by some to originate from some "Ah but this is not intelligent" - but there where we wanted to solve a problem of replacing intelligent action, not of implementing it. Be contented with the rough discriminator "I would have had to pay an intelligent professional otherwise".

To speak about «powerful AI, with broad capabilities at the human level and beyond» Ben Goertzel adopted and popularized 'AGI':

https://goertzel.org/who-coined-the-term-agi/

Edit, update: this confusion is like having robotics and some people rising a "Ah but this is not Artificial General Ability".

[cubefox]

AGI us not a very useful term, because people use it often synonymous with "human level or higher ability". But the opposite of "general AI" is not "less intelligent than a human" but "narrow AI". The narrow/general distinction is orthogonal to the low/high ability ("intelligence") distinction. All animals are very general, as their domain of operation is the real world, not some narrow modality like strings of text or Go boards. Animals are not significantly narrower than humans, they are significantly less intelligent. Understood this way, a cat level AI would be an AGI. It would just not be an HLAI (human level AI) or ASI (artificial superintelligence).

[theptip]

Personally I take AGI to refer to a system that is both “intelligent enough” and “general enough”. Given the existence of super-human narrow AI, the interesting property is generality, not intelligence. But I don’t think it’s useful to call a sub-human cat-level general AI an AGI.

Some would disagree; there was a paper arguing that ChatGPT is weak AGI.

But as I see it AGI is a term of art that refers to a point on the tech tree where AI is general enough to be able to meaningfully displace a large proportion of human knowledge workers. I think you may be overthinking the semantics; the “general enough and intelligent enough” quadrant is unique and will be incredibly disruptive when it arrives (whenever that ultimately is). We need a label for that frontier, “AGI” is by convention that label.

[cubefox]

Given the existence of super-human narrow AI, the interesting property is generality, not intelligence. But I don’t think it’s useful to call a sub-human cat-level general AI an AGI.

If we have AI as general as an animal, ASI (superintelligence) is probably imminent. Because the architecture of humans intelligence probably isn't very different from cats, just the scale is bigger.

[theptip]

I think that very well could be true, depends on how that generality was obtained.

I would not be surprised if a multi-modal LLM (basically current architecture) could be wired up to be as general as a cat with current param count, and with the spark of human creativity (AGI/ASI) still ending up being far away.

But if you made a new architecture that solved the generalization problem (ie baking in a world model, self-symbol, etc) but only reached cat intelligence, then it would seem very likely that human-level was soon to follow.

[mdp2021]

> people use it

Do you volunteer to inform them that we use it as "general" as opposed to "narrow"? (I mean, it is even in the very name of 'AGI', literal...)

For the rest: yes, of course. AGI: we implement intelligence itself. How much, that is part of the challenge. I wrote nearby (in other terms) that the challenge is to find a procedure for Intelligence that will actually scale.

[dron57]

That's a great way of looking at it in theory. But in practice how would we even know if we're looking at a cat-level AGI? For a human level AGI it's obvious, we would question and evaluate it.

Is there a reasonable way of distinguishing narrow-AI ChatGPT from a hypothetical cat-level AGI? We can't even measure the intelligence level of real world cats.

[cubefox]

A cat level AI would be able to use a robot body in the real world on the level of a cat.

[welshwelsh]

What counts as "human level"?

I would contend that a 5-year-old has general intelligence, and therefore an AI system with the language and reasoning abilities of a 5-year-old has artificial general intelligence.

But the discriminator of having to "pay an intelligent professional otherwise" sets the bar very high. That implies AGI must be an expert in every subject, surpassing the average human. I'd prefer we use a different term for that, like "artificial superintelligence."

[worrycue]

> What counts as "human level"?

IMHO if it can do every single human job at a level of competency that's consider acceptable if a human did it, I would consider that "human level" - frankly, it's implied that when people say "human level", they mean the average human.

Seriously though, arguing over semantics is just a waste of time. It's what it can do and the consequences of what it can that really matter.

> That implies AGI must be an expert in every subject, surpassing the average human.

Doesn't have to be the same AI "instance". We can have multiple copies of the AI with different specializations. That would still count - I mean it's how we humans do it.

[pedrosorio]

> But the discriminator of having to "pay an intelligent professional otherwise" sets the bar very high. That implies AGI

I believe they were using that discriminator to classify AI, not AGI.

[mdp2021]

> pay an intelligent professional otherwise [...] discriminator to classify AI

Exactly. "Ah but your system to organize the warehouse is not intelligent!" "No it isn't, but it does it intelligently - and without it you would have to pay an intelligent professional to get it done optimally".

AI: "automation of intelligence".

(Not "implementation of intelligence itself" - that is AGI.)