| Is this an argument in good faith? This is HN so I'll answer it in good faith and without fighting. I mean: - Passing the Turing test (for some measure of that) is a huge achievement - Poopoo-ing it is unuseful. - Moving the bar from chat-bot Turing test to wwwaaayyy over there at super-human intelligence is unuseful. There are lots of valuable steps in between. - There are many valuable steps before super-human intelligence. - Most humans are nowhere near super-human intelligence. They are still "intelligent" enough for significant effects on the world as well as day-to-day grind. - You can get plenty of sci-fi-level results without super-human intelligence - We have already achieved AGI - Artificial General Intelligence because plenty of humans operate "just fine" in the world with bog-standard intelligence and for the ones limited to a keyboard roughly equivalently to an LLM-based chatbot. Top of the line AGI OR top of the line intelligence is not necessary to massively change the world. - Incremental and bonus goals are a great thing! You are right! - Many humans will fight hard to reserve the term intelligence to wet stuff. That's unuseful. - Just because "it's done" doesn't mean all of a sudden
that Turing test was not a good test. |
About the only point of arguing it is if you personally developed Deep Blue to beat Gary Kasparov at chess, when "beating a human grandmaster at chess" would definitely(tm) be AI, and now you feel hacked off that your personal or team recognition has been trivialised by moving goalposts and you've missed out on fame and a place in history. But I'm thinking it can't possibly be that all the people rambling about moving goalposts could be in that position and not mention it.