|
|
|
|
|
by modeless
86 days ago
|
|
The test doesn't prove you have AGI. It proves you don't have AGI. If your AI can't solve these problems that humans can solve, it can't be AGI. Once the AIs solve this, there will be another ARC-AGI. And so on until we can't find any more problems that can be solved by humans and not AI. And that's when we'll know we have AGI. |
|
Kinda crazy that Yudkowsky and all those rationalists and enthusiasts spent over a decade obsessing over this stuff, and we've had almost 80 years of elite academics pondering on it, and none of them could come up with a meaningful, operational theory of intelligence. The best we can do is "closer to AGI" as a measurement, and even then, it's not 100% certain, because a model might have some cheap tricks implicit to the architecture that don't actually map to a meaningful difference in capabilities.
Gotta love the field of AI.