You misunderstand. Our definition of AGI is constantly shifting the more capable AI becomes to the point where it is always clearly not there yet and clearly we will not get there with current tech.
> But you just asserted that we do.
No, I say we would have called the current state of things AGI in a pre chatGPT time.
> They explained how. Your argument, OTOH, is nonsensical, like suggesting that, because a bike path was built rapidly, it will soon become a highway.
I'd say it would be something like:
"If a bike can drive 100 km/h, it's clearly a superbike"
[3 years later]
"This bike drives 100 km/h, so it is a superbike"
"No, only a bike that is going 500 km/h is a superbike and this bike is still very far off"
> But you just asserted that we do.
No, I say we would have called the current state of things AGI in a pre chatGPT time.
> They explained how. Your argument, OTOH, is nonsensical, like suggesting that, because a bike path was built rapidly, it will soon become a highway.
I'd say it would be something like:
"If a bike can drive 100 km/h, it's clearly a superbike"
[3 years later]
"This bike drives 100 km/h, so it is a superbike"
"No, only a bike that is going 500 km/h is a superbike and this bike is still very far off"