Dan Siroker argues AGI has already been achieved, but we're reluctant to admit it. He claims major AI labs have 'perverse incentives' to keep moving the goalposts, such as avoiding contractual triggers (like OpenAI with Microsoft) or to continue the lucrative AI funding race.
Related Insights
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.
Today's AI models have surpassed the definition of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) that was commonly accepted by AI researchers just over a decade ago. The debate continues because the goalposts for what constitutes "true" AGI have been moved.
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.
Silicon Valley insiders, including former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, believe AI capable of improving itself without human instruction is just 2-4 years away. This shift in focus from the abstract concept of superintelligence to a specific research goal signals an imminent acceleration in AI capabilities and associated risks.
The hype around an imminent Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) event is fading among top AI practitioners. The consensus is shifting to a "Goldilocks scenario" where AI provides massive productivity gains as a synergistic tool, with true AGI still at least a decade away.
There's a stark contrast in AGI timeline predictions. Newcomers and enthusiasts often predict AGI within months or a few years. However, the field's most influential figures, like Ilya Sutskever and Andrej Karpathy, are now signaling that true AGI is likely decades away, suggesting the current paradigm has limitations.
The definition of AGI is a moving goalpost. Scott Wu argues that today's AI meets the standards that would have been considered AGI a decade ago. As technology automates tasks, human work simply moves to a higher level of abstraction, making percentage-based definitions of AGI flawed.
The discourse around AGI is caught in a paradox. Either it is already emerging, in which case it's less a cataclysmic event and more an incremental software improvement, or it remains a perpetually receding future goal. This captures the tension between the hype of superhuman intelligence and the reality of software development.
The continuous narrative that AGI is "right around the corner" is no longer just about technological optimism. It has become a financial necessity to justify over a trillion dollars in expended or committed capital, preventing a catastrophic collapse of investment in the AI sector.
The race to manage AGI is hampered by a philosophical problem: there's no consensus definition for what it is. We might dismiss true AGI's outputs as "hallucinations" because they don't fit our current framework, making it impossible to know when the threshold from advanced AI to true general intelligence has actually been crossed.
