[8338550bff96]

How do you distinguish between the real thing and a perfect simulation of the real thing?

You seem to be engaged in faith-based reasoning at this point. If you were born in a sensory deprivation chamber you also would have no inner world, and you wouldn't have anything at all to say about solving chemistry problems.

> Im actually surprised so many get fooled by the hype and are ready to declare a winner.

Find me one person that says something like this. "AGI is here!" hype-lords exist only as a rhetorical device for the peanut gallery to ridicule.

[grugagag]

It’s the approach that matters. When it gets to 99.9 percent it’s pretty good to be dangerous. At that point it would be hard to tell but not impossible. As soon as a new type problem comes out it will bork on you and need retraining. It’ll be a game of catch albeit an very inneficient one. Im sure we will find a more efficient method eventually but the point still stands, what we have isn’t it.

I’ll shut up when I see leaps in reasoning without specific training on all variations possible of the problem sets.

[8338550bff96]

I'll shut up when I see humans get 99.9% on anything. This seems an awful lot like non-meat brain prejudice where standards that humans do not live up to at all are imposed on other things in order to be worthy of consideration

[namaria]

I'd settle for an "I don't know" instead of confidently made up nonsense.

People who say I don't know I can respect. People who confidently make up nonsense don't get many responsibilities from me.

[grugagag]

That’s actually good. The more voices the better, that will make for a more vibrant discussion.