6 ms·

"""OpenAI called the model a "generational leap" for areas such as cybersecurity, professional work, software engineering, and science, with the company's presi

"""OpenAI called the model a "generational leap" for areas such as cybersecurity, professional work, software engineering, and science, with the company's president Greg Brockman saying that it could eventually be seen as the arrival of artificial general intelligence""" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-6_Astra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-6_Astra according to Sam Altman from last year, an LLM should 'solve quantum gravity', if it is to count as AGI. Did anything change since then? https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-openai-david-deutsch-turing-test-for-agi-2025-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-openai-david-deut...

cheikhcheikh 13d ago
I think that would be more of ASI than AGI, AGI is a smart human, I'd say we're pretty close if not already there for most stuff we've been focusing on like coding. ASI is a super genius, beyond the smartest human, and we're nowhere near that. But as we've already seen with LLMs you don't need to wait for ASI to solve hard problems in math and physics.
- pontus 12d ago
  I find the distinction between AGI and ASI to be a red herring. In my mind, we humans already have enough intelligence to basically solve any problem given enough time and a 'scratch pad'. It's sort of like Turing-completeness but for intelligence. Saying that a computer exhibits artificial-SUPER-intelligence feels a little like saying that one universal Turing machine is more expressive than another universal Turing machine. The thing that sets the two Turing machines apart is not how expressive they are but how quickly and efficiently they can arrive at the given output. It's hard for me to imagine a task that ASI could complete which a human with enough time and determination couldn't also complete, although I can imagine such tasks for dogs which don't exhibit the same level of intelligence as humans. Maybe I'm too human-centric and naive. Maybe there are other tasks out there that are beyond human intelligence even given infinite time. If, however, my view of intelligence is correct, then the distinction between ASI and AGI is illusory, and the real distinction that we would see between systems is just their speed, efficiency, determination, etc. In my mind, once we achieve AGI, we immediately have ASI: just run that AGI on a faster computer, across many nodes, etc. Instead of having humans solve quantum gravity over the next 1000 years, just have AGI solve it over the next month.
SimianSci 13d ago
Bills are coming due, so marketing will change to fit the needs of the company's pocketbook. Please do not expect objectivity from Sam Altman or others with vested interests here. Its an impressive model, but AGI has always been a ridiculously nebulous concept used to inspire investors into giving away money.

cheikhcheikh 13d ago

I think that would be more of ASI than AGI, AGI is a smart human, I'd say we're pretty close if not already there for most stuff we've been focusing on like coding. ASI is a super genius, beyond the smartest human, and we're nowhere near that. But as we've already seen with LLMs you don't need to wait for ASI to solve hard problems in math and physics.

pontus 12d ago
I find the distinction between AGI and ASI to be a red herring. In my mind, we humans already have enough intelligence to basically solve any problem given enough time and a 'scratch pad'. It's sort of like Turing-completeness but for intelligence. Saying that a computer exhibits artificial-SUPER-intelligence feels a little like saying that one universal Turing machine is more expressive than another universal Turing machine. The thing that sets the two Turing machines apart is not how expressive they are but how quickly and efficiently they can arrive at the given output. It's hard for me to imagine a task that ASI could complete which a human with enough time and determination couldn't also complete, although I can imagine such tasks for dogs which don't exhibit the same level of intelligence as humans. Maybe I'm too human-centric and naive. Maybe there are other tasks out there that are beyond human intelligence even given infinite time. If, however, my view of intelligence is correct, then the distinction between ASI and AGI is illusory, and the real distinction that we would see between systems is just their speed, efficiency, determination, etc. In my mind, once we achieve AGI, we immediately have ASI: just run that AGI on a faster computer, across many nodes, etc. Instead of having humans solve quantum gravity over the next 1000 years, just have AGI solve it over the next month.

SimianSci 13d ago

Bills are coming due, so marketing will change to fit the needs of the company's pocketbook. Please do not expect objectivity from Sam Altman or others with vested interests here. Its an impressive model, but AGI has always been a ridiculously nebulous concept used to inspire investors into giving away money.