The term AGI was first used in 1997 by Mark Avrum Gubrud in an article named ‘Nanotechnology and international security’
By advanced artificial general intelligence, I mean AI systems that rival or surpass the human brain in complexity and speed, that can acquire, manipulate and reason with general knowledge, and that are usable in essentially any phase of industrial or military operations where a human intelligence would otherwise be needed. Such systems may be modeled on the human brain, but they do not necessarily have to be, and they do not have to be “conscious” or possess any other competence that is not strictly relevant to their application. What matters is that such systems can be used to replace human brains in tasks ranging from organizing and running a mine or a factory to piloting an airplane, analyzing intelligence data or planning a battle.
I’m only countering your claim where you seem to be suggesting that the term AGI was made up to market LLMs. It wasn’t - that term has existed for a long time.
You are glomming onto a slightly poor wording choice on my part because you are wrong and desperate to salvage a win from this conversation and I wish you could just admit it.
There’s nothing else in your reply for me to respond to. I made a comment about statistical probabilities and you responded with ramblings about AGI that in no way address anything I said. You’re entitled to your opinion and I’m not interested in trying to convince you otherwise.
The term AGI was first used in 1997 by Mark Avrum Gubrud in an article named ‘Nanotechnology and international security’
I fail to see how this disproves my point.
The term AGI was coined far before LLMs even existed.
That doesn’t change how it’s being used or why it was invented.
I’m only countering your claim where you seem to be suggesting that the term AGI was made up to market LLMs. It wasn’t - that term has existed for a long time.
You are glomming onto a slightly poor wording choice on my part because you are wrong and desperate to salvage a win from this conversation and I wish you could just admit it.
That slightly poor wording choice was my entire point.
I know, your whole point is missing mine.
There’s nothing else in your reply for me to respond to. I made a comment about statistical probabilities and you responded with ramblings about AGI that in no way address anything I said. You’re entitled to your opinion and I’m not interested in trying to convince you otherwise.