> defining AGI as matching the cognitive versatility and proficiency of a well-educated adult

Seems most of the people one would encounter out in the world might not posses AGI, how are we supposed to be able to train our electrified rocks to have AGI if this is the case?

If no one has created a online quiz called "Are you smarter than AGI?" yet based on the proposed "ten core cognitive domains", I'd be disappointed.

I think "our" mistake is that we wanted to make a modern human first, while being unable to make an animal or even a caveman, and we lost something in the leap-frog. But we effectively have a database of knowledge that has become interactive thanks to reinforcement learning, which is really useful!

A forecast by one of the authors of the paper: 50% chance that AGI is reached according to the definition by end of 2028, 80% by end of 2030. https://ai-frontiers.org/articles/agis-last-bottlenecks

All models are wrong, but some are useful. However when it comes to cognition and intelligence we seem to be in the “wrong and useless” era or maybe even “wrong and harmful” (history seems to suggest this as a necessary milestone…anyone remember “humorism”?)

Completely wrong direction. AGI will not emerge from getting smarter. It will emerge from being a stateful system in a real environment.

You need context from internal system state that isn’t faked with a giant context window.

Maybe we need a new term. I mean AGI just means artificial general intelligence as opposed to specialised AI like chess computers and never came with a particular level it had to be. Most people think of it as human level intelligence so perhaps we should call it that?

I wish them luck. Any consensus at all, on any definition at all, would be a boon to mankind. Unfortunately I am certain that all we have to look forward to is endless goal post shifting.

Long-term memory storage capacity[1] scores 0 for both GPT-4 and GPT-5. Are there any workable ideas or concepts for solving this?

[1]: The capability to continually learn new information (associative, meaningful, and verbatim). (from the publication)

You need some expertise in a field to see past the amazing imitation capabilities of LLMs and get a realistic idea of how mediocre they are. The more you work with it the less you trust it. This is not _it_.

I think that's a good effort! I remember mentioning the need for this here a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44468198