[simonw]

"That is the premise of LLM-as-AI" - I assumed that was an AGI reference. My definition of AGI is pretty much "hyped AI". What did you mean by "LLM-as-AI"?

In my own writing I don't even use the term "AI" very often because its meaning is so vague.

You're right to call me out on this: I did, in this earlier comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43644662#43647037 - commit the sin of responding to something you hadn't actually said.

(Worse than that, I said "... is uninformed in my opinion" which was rude because I was saying that about a strawman argument.)

I did that thing where I saw an excuse to bang on one of my pet peeves (people saying "LLMs can't create new code if it's not already in their training data") and jumped at the opportunity.

I've tried to continue the rest of the conversation in good faith though. I'm sorry if it didn't come across that way.

[mdp2021]

> My definition of AGI is pretty much

Simon, intelligence exists (and unintelligence exists). When you write «I'm not claiming LLMs can invent new computer science», you imply intelligence exists.

We can implement it. And it is somehow urgent, because intelligence is very desirable wealth - there is definite scarcity. It is even more urgent after the recent hype has made some people perversely confused about the idea of intelligence.

We can and must go well beyond the current state.