Defining AGI as 'human-equivalent' is too limiting because human intelligence is capped by biology (e.g., an IQ of ~160). The truly transformative moment is when AI systems surpass these biological limits, providing access to problem-solving capabilities that are fundamentally greater than any human's.
Related Insights
OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever suggests the path to AGI is not creating a pre-trained, all-knowing model, but an AI that can learn any task as effectively as a human. This reframes the challenge from knowledge transfer to creating a universal learning algorithm, impacting how such systems would be deployed.
As AI models achieve previously defined benchmarks for intelligence (e.g., reasoning), their failure to generate transformative economic value reveals those benchmarks were insufficient. This justifies 'shifting the goalposts' for AGI. It is a rational response to realizing our understanding of intelligence was too narrow. Progress in impressiveness doesn't equate to progress in usefulness.
Dr. Vijoy Pandey defines ASI with two concrete benchmarks: 1) an AI system performing 100% of a human task autonomously (economic viability), and 2) an AI inventing novel ideas beyond its training data without human help (technical viability).
AI intelligence shouldn't be measured with a single metric like IQ. AIs exhibit "jagged intelligence," being superhuman in specific domains (e.g., mastering 200 languages) while simultaneously lacking basic capabilities like long-term planning, making them fundamentally unlike human minds.
The popular conception of AGI as a pre-trained system that knows everything is flawed. A more realistic and powerful goal is an AI with a human-like ability for continual learning. This system wouldn't be deployed as a finished product, but as a 'super-intelligent 15-year-old' that learns and adapts to specific roles.
Framing AGI as reaching human-level intelligence is a limiting concept. Unconstrained by biology, AI will rapidly surpass the best human experts in every field. The focus should be on harnessing this superhuman capability, not just achieving parity.
Hassabis argues AGI isn't just about solving existing problems. True AGI must demonstrate the capacity for breakthrough creativity, like Einstein developing a new theory of physics or Picasso creating a new art genre. This sets a much higher bar than current systems.
OpenAI's CEO believes the term "AGI" is ill-defined and its milestone may have passed without fanfare. He proposes focusing on "superintelligence" instead, defining it as an AI that can outperform the best human at complex roles like CEO or president, creating a clearer, more impactful threshold.
The popular concept of AGI as a static, all-knowing entity is flawed. A more realistic and powerful model is one analogous to a 'super intelligent 15-year-old'—a system with a foundational capacity for rapid, continual learning. Deployment would involve this AI learning on the job, not arriving with complete knowledge.
Shane Legg proposes "Minimal AGI" is achieved when an AI can perform the cognitive tasks a typical person can. It's not about matching Einstein, but about no longer failing at tasks we'd expect an average human to complete. This sets a more concrete and achievable initial benchmark for the field.
