That is stupid. It would be possible to be infinitely arbitrary to the point of “AGI” never being reachable by some yard sticks while still performing most viable labor.
>It would be possible to be infinitely arbitrary to the point of “AGI” never being reachable by some yard sticks while still performing most viable labor.
"Most viable labor" involves getting things from one place to another, and that's not even the hard part of it.
In any case, any sane definition of general AI would entail things that people can generally do.
Rest assured, your friends driving was the same quality as the average drunk grandma on the road if they were exclusively using Tesla's "FSD" with no intervention for hours. It drives so piss poorly that I have to frequently intervene even on the latest beta software. If I lived in a shoot happy state like Texas I'm sure that a road rager would have put a bullet hole somewhere in my Tesla by now if I kept driving like that.
There's a difference between "I survived" and "I drive anywhere close to the quality of the average American" - a low bar and one that still is not met by Tesla FSD.
Yeah, and let's not forget that "I drive like a mildly blind idiot" is only a viable (literally) choice when everyone else doesn't do that and compensates for your idiocy.
ok but have you asked your Tesla to write you a mobile app? AGI would be able to do both. (the self-driving thing is just an example of something AGI would be able to do but an LLM can't)
So why are your arbitrary yard sticks more valid than someone elses?
Probable the biggest problem as others have stated is that we can’t really define intelligence more precisely than that it is something most humans have and all rocks don’t. So how could any definition for AGI be any more precise?
It's one skill almost everyone on the planet can learn exceptionally easily - which Waymo is on pace to master, but a generalized LLM by itself is still very far from.
OP said all yardsticks and I said that was infinitely arbitrary… because it literally is infinitely arbitrary. You can conjure up an infinite amount of yardsticks.
As far as driving itself goes as a yardstick, I just don’t find it interesting because we literally have Waymo’s orbiting major cities and Teslas driving on the roads already right now.
If that’s the yardstick you want to use, go for it. It just doesn’t seem particularly smart to hang your hat on that one as your Final Boss.
It also doesn’t seem particularly useful for defining intelligence itself in an academic sort of way because even humans struggle to drive well in many scenarios.
But hey if that’s what you wanna use don’t let me stop you, sure, go for it. I have feeling you’ll need new goalposts relatively soon if you do, though.
And using humans as 'the benchmark' is risky in itself as it can leave us with blind spots on AI behavior. For example we find humans aren't as general as we expected, or the "we made the terminator and it's exterminating mankind, but it's not AGI because it doesn't have feelings" issues.
