[lupusreal]

> "We don’t need anything nearing AGI for these bots to become nearly indistinguishable from humans"

More and more I think AGI is shifting to mean "machine soul" or some nebulous wishy-washy unfalsifiable religious/philosophy shit like that. What meaning could AGI have which is empirically verifiable, other than being indistinguishable from people? Humans I presume are supposed to have "general intelligence", so if there isn't a detectable difference between the machine and humans, how is that not artificial general intelligence?

[haswell]

Language is just a variable resolution abstraction on top of non-linguistic thinking and information processing.

I think it’s a mistake to equate the language ability of these models with general intelligence, even if the language produced is excellent.

I think some people see AGI that way (some nebulous unfalsifiable thing), but that’s not what I’m arguing. I think there’s a strong case to be made that at a minimum, AGI’s core “knowledge” will need to be made up of far more than just a lossy textual representation of the world.

[apwell23]

> there isn't a detectable difference between the machine and humans

Humans come in all levels of intelligence. Yes there might be a human somewhere that believes that they should eat rocks or add glue to pizza. But as a generality we can assume that adult "humans" know not to eat rocks.

[lupusreal]

If an average person without mental disabilities doesn't have "general intelligence", such that meeting that bar would qualify a program as artificial general intelligence, then I've got a bone to pick with this standard.