> AGI is/was supposed to be about achieving results of the average human being, not about a sci-fi AI god
When we build something we do not intend to build something that just achieves results «of the average human being», and a slow car, a weak crane, a vague clock are built provisionally in the process of achieving the superior aid intended... So AGI expects human level results provisionally, while the goal remains to go beyond them. The clash you see is only apparent.
> I think the term AI is going to ... will fade out over time
Are you aware that we have been using that term for at least 60 years?
And that the Brownian minds of the masses very typically try to interfere while we proceed focusedly and regarding it as noise? Today they decide that the name is Anna, tomorrow Susie: childplay should remain undeterminant.
Building something that replicates the abilities of the average human being in no way implies that this eventually leads to a superintelligent entity. And my broader point was that many people are using the term AGI as synonymous with that superintelligent entity. The concepts are very poorly defined and thrown around without much deeper thought.
> Are you aware that we have been using that term for at least 60 years?
Yes, and for the first ±55 of those years, it was largely limited to science fiction stories and niche areas of computer science. In the last ±5 years, it's being added to everything. I can order groceries with AI, optimize my emails with AI, on and on. It's become exceptionally more widespread of a term recently.
> And that the Brownian minds of the masses very typically try to interfere while we proceed focusedly and regarding it as noise? Today they decide that the name is Anna, tomorrow Susie: childplay should remain undeterminant.
You're going to have to rephrase this sentence, because it's unclear what point you're trying to make other than "the masses are stupid." I'm not sure "the masses" are even relevant here, as I'm talking about individuals leading/working at AI companies.
I honestly never understood AGI as a simulation of Average Joe: it makes no sense to me. Either we go for the implementation of a high degree of intelligence, or why should we give an "important" name to "petty project" (however complicated, that can only be an effort that does not have an end in itself). Is it possible that the terminological confusion you see is because we are individually very radicated in our assumptions (e.g. "I want AGI as a primary module in Decision Support Systems")?
> In the last ±5 years, it's being added to everything // I'm not sure "the masses" are even relevant here, as I'm talking about individuals leading/working at AI companies
Who has «added to everything» the term AI? The «individuals leading/working at AI companies»? I would have said, the onlookers, or relatively marginal actors (e.g. marketing) who have an interest in the buzzword. So my point was: we will go on using he term in «niche [and not so niche] areas of computer science» irregardless of the outside noise.
When we build something we do not intend to build something that just achieves results «of the average human being», and a slow car, a weak crane, a vague clock are built provisionally in the process of achieving the superior aid intended... So AGI expects human level results provisionally, while the goal remains to go beyond them. The clash you see is only apparent.
> I think the term AI is going to ... will fade out over time
Are you aware that we have been using that term for at least 60 years?
And that the Brownian minds of the masses very typically try to interfere while we proceed focusedly and regarding it as noise? Today they decide that the name is Anna, tomorrow Susie: childplay should remain undeterminant.