[lxgr]

Arguably there isn't even a widely shared, coherent definition of intelligence: To some people, it might mean pure problem solving without in-task learning; others equate it with encyclopedic knowledge etc.

Given that, I consider it quite possible that we'll reach a point where even more people will consider LLMs having reached or surpassed AGI, while others still only consider it "sufficiently advanced autocomplete".

[kylebyte]

I'd believe this more if companies weren't continuing to use words like reason, understand, learn, and genius when talking about these systems.

I buy that there's disagreement on what intelligence means in the enthusiast space, but "thinks like people" is pretty clearly the general understanding of the word, and the one that tech companies are hoping to leverage.

[BizarroLand]

The defining feature of true AGI, in my opinion, is that the software itself would decide what to do and do it without external prompts more than environmental input.

Doubly so if the AGI writes software for itself to accomplish a task it decided to do.

Once someone has software like that, not a dog that is sicced on a task, but a bloodhound that seeks out novelty and accomplishment for its own personal curiosity or to test its capabilities, then you have a good chance of convincing me that AGI has been achieved.

Until then, we have fancy autocomplete.