[chuckadams]

Did I really need to use the /s tag? But a four-year-old is occasionally correct. Are they not intelligent? My cat can't answer math problems, is it a mere automaton? If we can't define what "true" intelligence is, then perhaps a simulation that fools people into calling it "close enough" is actually that, close enough.

[bix6]

> There's also plenty of argument to be made that it's already here

Given you start with that I would say yes the /s is needed.

A 4 year old isn’t statistically predicting the next word to say; its intelligence is very different from an LLM. Calling an LLM “intelligent” seems more marketing than fact based.

[chuckadams]

I actually meant that first sentence too. One can employ sarcasm to downplay their own arguments as well, which was my intent, as in that it might be possible that AGI might not be a binary definition like "True" AI, and that we're seeing something that's senile and not terribly bright, but still "generally intelligent" in some limited sense.

And now after having to dissect my attempt at lightheartedness, like a frog or a postmodern book club reading, all the fun has gone out. There's a reason I usually stay out of these debates, but I guess I wouldn't have been pointed to that delightful pdf if I hadn't piped up.