I agree that “general intelligence” is a concept that already applies to modern LLMs, which are often quite capable across different domains. I definitely agree that LLMs are, in certain areas, already capable of matching or outperforming a (non-expert) human.
There is some value in talking about just that alone, I think. There seems to be a bias in play—preventing many from recognizing AI as capable. A lot of people are all too eager to dismiss AI capabilities—whether out of some belief in human exceptionalism, some degree of insecurity, some manner of “uncanny valley” response, something like “it seems too sci-fi to be true”, or something else entirely.
But I don’t agree that the systems we have are “human level”, and I’m against using “AGI”, which implies human or superhuman level of intelligence, to refer to systems like GPT-4.
Those AIs are very capable. But there are a few glaring, massive deficiencies that prevent them from being broadly “human level”. Off the top of my head, they are deficient in:
Long term memory
Learning capabilities
Goal-oriented behavior
I like the term “subhuman AGI” for systems like GPT-4 though. It’s a concise way of removing the implication of “human-level” from “AGI”, and refocusing on the “general intelligence” part of the term.
I agree that “general intelligence” is a concept that already applies to modern LLMs, which are often quite capable across different domains. I definitely agree that LLMs are, in certain areas, already capable of matching or outperforming a (non-expert) human.
There is some value in talking about just that alone, I think. There seems to be a bias in play—preventing many from recognizing AI as capable. A lot of people are all too eager to dismiss AI capabilities—whether out of some belief in human exceptionalism, some degree of insecurity, some manner of “uncanny valley” response, something like “it seems too sci-fi to be true”, or something else entirely.
But I don’t agree that the systems we have are “human level”, and I’m against using “AGI”, which implies human or superhuman level of intelligence, to refer to systems like GPT-4.
Those AIs are very capable. But there are a few glaring, massive deficiencies that prevent them from being broadly “human level”. Off the top of my head, they are deficient in:
Long term memory
Learning capabilities
Goal-oriented behavior
I like the term “subhuman AGI” for systems like GPT-4 though. It’s a concise way of removing the implication of “human-level” from “AGI”, and refocusing on the “general intelligence” part of the term.