[nutjob2]

There's no concrete evidence AGI is possible mostly because it has no concrete definition.

It's mostly hand waving, hype and credulity, and unproven claims of scalability right now.

You can't move the goal posts because they don't exist.

[_heimdall]

Got it, and yeah I agree with you there. I've been frustrated by a different view of it though, many people seem to have a definition and they are often wildly different.

[dahcryn]

even AI does not have a concrete definition.

Doesn't mean there aren't practical definitions depending on the context.

In essence, teaching an AI using recources meant for humans, and nothing more, would be considered AGI. That could be a practical definition, without needing much more rigour.

There is indeed no evidence we'll get there. But there is also no evidence LLM's should work as well as they do

[ashirviskas]

Well, if a human is GI, we just need to make it Artificial. Easy.

[abalashov]

I like to say that it's not AI -- it's just A.