At some point someone moved the goalposts for this to include LLMs that emphatically are not that. I think it was Altman when they came out with Astra?
I have to ask, what humans do you know that have more general intelligence? This isn't a dream team where you can say "Magnus Carlson can beat it at chess, and Linus can write better C code", this is a comparison across all domains and levels of intelligence. Even its IQ is estimated at 141, which is seriously higher than the average human. The average human's reading level is atrocious. The average human cannot write a standard 5 paragraph essay about a random topic.
My understanding is that models will often still forget games rules etc unless you design a harness specifically to assist them and prevent them going off the rails. I was going to use chess as an example but it sounds like they are good enough to do that now, albeit I'm not sure if they have a special harness for it.
It's not about how "smart" they are, or how good they are at recall. It's about whether I can teach a model to understand and execute an arbitrary, general task regardless of whether they have been trained on that task before.
Disregarding the above, the fact models still require a human prompter/decision-maker is defacto proof they aren't AGI in my view. If they were humans would be obsolete in decision-making.
I don't get what you're saying here- AGI doesn't need intelligence? You just want autonomy?
If these were AGI we wouldn't be talking about them helping engineers, engineer jobs would just not exist. The AI would be superior in every way that mattered. That's not the case yet, so IMO we don't have AGI.
they aren't as intelligent as a human, but they can throw shit at the wall faster, and get something that sticks faster. they are superhuman in areas that require trial and error, like hacking.
everyone stopped talking about the Turing test once ChatGPT came out and broke right through it while still being very very dumb. AGI is just too blurry to define.