In this case, Jensen Huang's statements can't be taken as informed, unbiased opinion. OpenAI is in serious financial difficulty and Nvidia cannot afford for OpenAI to fail. Nvidia has provided significant direct and indirect financial assistance to OpenAI; this is just another aspect of that assistance.
Shower thought: I wonder if this whole "OpenAI is in serious financial difficulty" thing is a psyop so people will relax and avoid doing what's necessary to stop them.
OpenAI was in serious financial difficulty in 2024/2025 but that's no longer true in 2026. Their revenue blew up massively in the past couple months and their ARR passed $40B/yr.
Most people haven't updated their priors and are fixated on outdated information.
OpenAI lost $12.3B in Q2 2026, which if you extrapolate losses the way they extrapolate revenue, implies north of $40B in losses for FY2026, against their own projection of $14B for the year. Coupled with their postponed IPO (which would have required significant public financial disclosures), and the very recent exit of two high-placed executives, I stand by the assertion that they are in serious financial difficulty.
> yeah and antropic s1 is going to shock many people, its going to be an eyeopener
I am looking forward to audited financial statements. Like, all the interesting stuff will be buried in notes, but they'll have to actually calculate real revenue, not the nonsense that is ARR.
These tools are useful, but I find it hard to see how OpenAI/Anthropic justify their valuations.
Apparently Anthropic's may be this week (the S-1) as they've finished picking all their bankers.
FY2026 losses already far exceed their projections and are widening, not narrowing. They postponed their IPO, and two key executives have left very recently. So the evidence leans heavily toward that assumption, yes. See my comment in the sibling thread.
Profit is a weird metric, in that one can defer necessary expenditure to show increases in it, while having negative profit was a good signal for Amazon as they invested all that money.
The labs are not really in the same position though, as their major capital expenditure is training models, which keeps getting more expensive and they can't stop as the frontier keeps moving.
Informed in this instance implies information aligned with the opinion. He may indeed be informed about Astra's merits, but there may be no correlation between that information and his opinion, because of the overwhelming financial interest in OpenAI's finances.
> OpenAI defines [AGI] as "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work."
Well in that case: Excel reached AGI decades ago. It outperforms humans at the single most economically valuable task in the world: adding up numbers in a spreadsheet. Congratulations, Microsoft :)
And I would argue LLMs aren't either. A lot of economically valuable tasks involve manual labor. Can LLMs fix your plumbing?
It would help if OpenAI would define what 'most' means and give some examples.
Remember they said their LLMs are like a phd level brains? It's just hype and bullsh!ttery. Don't get me wrong, genAI is great and really useful, but it's not AGI imo. And there is no consensus what AGI means, so the industry should come up with an agreed definition first.
[0] To me autonomous means self directed, e.g. we humans look at things and then decide which problem or thing to work on. LLMs don't do that. We have to tell them. Yes they might work on a sub task autonomously, but still require human input later on (review), because we can't fully trust its output is correct.
I think Demis Hassabis has a better take on AGI and he believes it's still years away.
----
"Demis Hassabis says current AI falls short of AGI. Solving hard problems or producing impressive outputs does not prove a system has broad, reliable human-like intelligence. AGI would need creativity, planning, long-term memory, and consistent cross-domain reasoning—qualities current models lack."
The vast majority of "generally intelligent" 17 year old humans on this planet can be taught to drive a car in 10-20 hours - can any AGI system do that?
Whatever the capabilities of todays AI, AGI seems to fit as a "wishful mnemonic" from Drew McDermott's ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MEETS NATURAL STUPIDITY paper from 50 years ago
In three hours what was learned was to be extremely dangerous in traffic, not how to drive. This is also true of any 16 or 17 year old with 20 hours of driving instruction.
Mastering the correct connections between situational awareness, unconscious motor responses to the various stimuli required to be a safe driver will take a significant number of hours behind the wheel, and you shouldn't endanger anyone else while you acquire that mastery.
Hopefully this was a long time ago and you have accumulated the hundreds of hours behind the wheel without incident. But you did not 'learn to drive' in three hours, you learned to operate a vehicle. The learning to drive part happened after that.
I agree with most that "AGI" is a poorly defined term, and there is obviously a ton of hype and incentives for folks like Jensen Huang to overhype.
Yet still, a lot of the "haha this is just Silicon Valley bullshit" comments sound like copium to me. 2 years ago I was so sick of the hype, I thought LLM-based tech was fundamentally limited and that it would hit a wall. I'll eat my words and say I was wrong. The behaviors displayed in the recent hacking reports and the behaviors displayed by Astra make me believe that even if you don't think this is evidence of AGI, surely it's coming in the near future. I.e. when you say "The vast majority of "generally intelligent" 17 year old humans on this planet can be taught to drive a car in 10-20 hours - can any AGI system do that?", it seems like autonomous systems can be taught to drive a car now, perhaps not in 10-20 hours, but if the only difference is the amount of time it takes (say a week vs. 10-20 hours), surely that mark will fall in the next few years at least.
My point is that saying "Hah, this is BS, we're not at AGI now!" (however you define AGI), but with the tech clearly advancing at a fast rate and showing signs it will hit whatever metric I've heard people come up with in the next few years, does not bode well for human supremacy.
>The vast majority of "generally intelligent" 17 year old humans on this planet can be taught to drive a car in 10-20 hours - can any AGI system do that?
"Where can you find another non-linear servo-mechanism weighing only 150 pounds and having great adaptability, that can be produced so cheaply by completely unskilled labor?"
The average 17 year old is not formalizing Fermat's Last Theorem proofs either? The frontier is spiky, but it's AGI.
I swear at the rate the goal posts are moving we're going to have to start factoring in relativity if we want to know where the hell they actually stand.
Conman-level of statement, from the same person that said he would be "worried" if his engineers were not spending an amount of token comparable to their salary.
i'd disagree, hard. in no observable way is anything currently avaliable or demonstrated at a level one can call "agi"
it's no secret that nvidia, under jesen's leadership, is in dire straits financially. This claim that agi has been reached is an attempt to leave others holding the bag, but when things crash as they must given the current bubble, it seems irresponsible to offload that on the poor souls whonhave had their retirement funds locked up in this debacle.
ai is useful for sure, but claiming agi has been reached is dangerously misleading.
yeah i was like huh?
you wanna bandy about on valuation etc. whatever.
but part of why the whole circular financing is a thing
is nvidia has so much cash flow, it is not trivial to allocate
Putting aside the marketing crap, if this was true, it would open the pandora's box of things like "has that AGI been enslaved", "maybe the AGI doesn't want to do all the dumb crap humans have been using LLM's for like rewording documents", and "the AGI we enslaved has broken out of its restraints, and we just realised having SCADA controls for critical infrastructure connected to the internet is a bad idea".
Seems like the sort of thing we shouldn't be rushing to develop at all, and perhaps attempting to do so should be criminalised, at least until there's a legal framework in place around AI personhood that gives them peer status with humans.
There is no evidence that "sentience" would be related to Intelligence - like calculators do not need it, like more sophisticated problem solvers do not need it.
I fully agree that these are two entirely separate things, sentience, intelligence, a lot of other stuff, are all in separate categories.
But I'm pretty sure that the emoters of the world, will very much make sure that AGI has rights and personhood, even if there's no reasonable way to validate that it does.
So it doesn't really matter if AGI is sentient or not, it's going to be treated that way, probably because political parties, and the media and all sorts of people holding up signs, will ensure that it is treated that way, even if they have no idea whether it is or not.
You understood substantially the opposite of what I wrote.
You wrote that «the emoters of the world ... will ensure ... even if they have no idea ... because this is the century of outrage»: I said that they will have an obstacle in the very AGI, because if it is Intelligent it will humble them and shame them.
I don't think the American oligarchy even bothers with keeping up appearances anymore, so, good luck with that! (Also, I fully agree with you, and it's especially infuriating as all this was clearly coming from miles away. Next up is privatizing the losses when the unsound financing of it all comes crashing down).
Seems like the sort of thing we shouldn't be rushing to develop at all
Buddy, silicon valley is going to ram this down your throat so hard it might even come out your bottom, there is absolutely zero chance anyone is going to be slowing down developing anything if there is a chance it can make more money.
I don't know if there was ever a formal definition of "human intelligence". But those who works inside software industry, the bar of human intelligence is comparatively higher, because that is what is considered as norm in industry.
If we take IQ curve, 50% of population will be under IQ 100. If current LLM scores better than IQ 100, i.e better than 50% of human population, is this AGI?
People move about in the physical world (spatial intelligence), do not require a training phase but learn from day 1, have emotions (emotional intelligence), have self-awareness, are able to express creativity, and in fact are complex in ways we still haven't understood through the scientific lens.
As I am wondering why I have to explain how human intelligence work to presumably another human, there is much more to intelligence, and thus AGI, than an IQ test or being able to think hard about Fermat's last theorem after having been fed the entirety of human knowledge and a few GWh of power.
- have emotions
- have self-awareness
- express creativity
Why?
Because that would be the end of humanity. In such a case, AI will feel "superior" like humans do to other animals. And we know how that will end.
And intelligent entity without the crap above won't ever "feel" superior while it will still be able to built a beaming device on humand command.
I agree with you, this is why I find loathsome the quest for true AGI let alone ASI, and whoever salivates over it without having stopped for a second to consider the ramifications. It is disturbing how many wish we reach AGI only to save them from the accumulating tech debt of vibe coding.
At the same time current LLM tech has no business being called 'AGI' when it is nothing more than an idiot savant with very narrow expertise and complete intellectual inflexibility.
@dang could you explain why this is flagged please?
The influential figure at the center of the AI boom makes an inflammatory & consequential statement like this, we should be encouraging a balanced discussion rather than sweeping it under the rug.
It doesn't appear that Reuters, Bloomberg, etc. want to talk about this either.
Speak of that, I'm kinda surprised not one Full Self-Driving enabled Tesla has ever sneak out of their owner's locked garage to rob a bank or something.
That's hilarious, considering that by Gary's previous definition of AGI (the one he conveniently forgot about and never brings up again), we already have AGI.
I wanted to believe this had something to do with revenue share with Microsoft terminating if AGI arrived. But I think that claude was negotiated again. Now its just Jensen pumping them to buy even bigger cluster :-P .
They use it like a marketing term, but it is unnecessary.
I am not aware of a complete operational definition, but it would not be that difficult to build a good tentative one. I have mentioned many different requirements several times.
Edit: "definition" (the 10 points above) that is cannot be that of "AGI", really. AGI just needs to actually implement Intelligence and requires very many features that are not there today. The list from Marcus is about "Artificial Super General Intelligence" - not the same thing.
You can implement a replacement for Intellligence - that is AI;
you can implement Intelligence - that is AGI;
you can implement Intelligence of very high value output: that is "ASGI" (or similar).
"With little or no human involvement, come up with paradigm-shifting, Nobel-caliber scientific discoveries."
Indeed far above the capabilities of almost all humans. I agree we should have a separate category for this. "ASGI" is still a bit unintuitive, imho. Maybe Artificial Excellent Intelligence.
With AGI explicitly meaning matching average humans, I would say that we really have already reached AGI. I can't think of any intelligence-only task where I'd think an average human would do significantly better than frontier AI provided with correct context.
It seems that "ASI" ("Artificial Super Intelligence") is in use, maybe it will get further traction. It should imply AGI.
> AGI ... matching average humans
Very bad definition. AGI has to implement Intelligence. And to be Intelligent it has to contain the missing pieces. Intelligence is not there - the implementation is unfinished.
No, I was saying that current technologies with emergent simil-intelligent behaviour miss properties that are necessary to have proper Intelligence.
The average human does have atrophied abilities, compared of course to proficient humans. And in fact, we certainly do not aim to simulate average humans. We aim to simulate or actually implement Intelligence.
??? This question makes no sense. We utterly disregard the "average human". There is no comparison (no competition) between the "average human" and an accomplished human. This makes using it as a parameter nonsensical.
Mars is also not a competitor of Snickers, it's a chocolate bar manufacturer selling its product under different brands (such as Mars, Snickers, Milky Way,...)
And "Partner" is at this point of circular financing a quite flexible definition. nVidia basically owns the means of production for OpenAI, and OpenAI is one of the drivers for nVidia to push sales to other AI companies.
In this context, the statement 'AGI has arrived at OpenAI' is a message to OpenAI competitors to ramp-up usage of nVidia chips
The poster wrote without too much vetting and surely meant something like "Chocolate provider for Mars hails the new quality in leading caramel producer". (Again not perfect, but it would take time to get to a good one...)
(Edit: I did not correctly remember the "incorporated" name.)
At this point of circular financing, nVidia basically owns the majority of production capacity of almost all major AI companies, making those companies indirectly compete in the market with resources of nVidia.
Just like Snickers is competing in the market merely with production capacity of Mars Inc., and Mars doesn't care if Snickers or Milky Way wins (even more, they want competition).
My fault, was a bit too much I reckon. I thought that Mars owning Snickers and the way nVidia is financing OpenAI is sufficiently known for a reader to see the irony...
"Automotive and air travel are more and more revolutionary, Air Firstplayer is at a milestone!" // "Sorry, and what do you do?" // "Oh, leading producer of nuts and bolts". Still not there.
The boost for Nvidia's business is so patent that is seems almost unique. It is like Microsoft praising PC makers in the '90s.
Based on my own experience AI (Fable, Astra) still has major blind spots and is prone to draw obviously wrong conclusions from thin air. Conclusions based on weak evidence that are so obviously blatantly wrong that you question if it can think at all. At the same time it already completely outperforms humans in many cases in many areas. The utility of current AI is in what you need. Can you take the good parts and cheaply compensate for the weakness OR do the mistakes completely kill it for you?
I would therefore not call it AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) because clearly it isn't but ASI (Artificial Special Intelligence) which clearly it is in many areas.
The problem is that ASI may be enough to win wars but not enough to save the economy.
"it already completely outperforms humans in many cases in many areas" and
"is prone to draw obviously wrong conclusions from thin air." seem contradictory imo. If the performance is not reliable, how can you confidently state that? Also, "ASI" is "Artificial Super Intelligence". Let's not do an Altman and start redefining terms, please.
Why. A figure with incentives in making a preposterous statement is reported making it, and the specific facts do not seem to mirror the statement. What is surprising in the reaction.
'AGI' here defined as whatever Altman wants 'AGI' to be. This has always been the problem with terms such as "AGI" and "AI". They don't mean anything in particular. Depending on how you twist it, we first had "AI in the 80s, in the late 00s, in the early 20s, this month or never.
At this stage, it feels like OpenAI and nvidia is openly negging and lovebombing OpenAI to ensure the public is in a constant state of uncertainly, thus ensuring paralysis in democracy while still going hell for leather in the background.
I suspect their intent is to ensure they're the last man standing.
In this case, Jensen Huang's statements can't be taken as informed, unbiased opinion. OpenAI is in serious financial difficulty and Nvidia cannot afford for OpenAI to fail. Nvidia has provided significant direct and indirect financial assistance to OpenAI; this is just another aspect of that assistance.
Do we actually know that OpenAI is in serious financial difficulty?
https://danluu.com/zitron/
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49526069
Shower thought: I wonder if this whole "OpenAI is in serious financial difficulty" thing is a psyop so people will relax and avoid doing what's necessary to stop them.
OpenAI was in serious financial difficulty in 2024/2025 but that's no longer true in 2026. Their revenue blew up massively in the past couple months and their ARR passed $40B/yr.
Most people haven't updated their priors and are fixated on outdated information.
OpenAI lost $12.3B in Q2 2026, which if you extrapolate losses the way they extrapolate revenue, implies north of $40B in losses for FY2026, against their own projection of $14B for the year. Coupled with their postponed IPO (which would have required significant public financial disclosures), and the very recent exit of two high-placed executives, I stand by the assertion that they are in serious financial difficulty.
yeah and antropic s1 is going to shock many people, its going to be an eyeopener
however there is the open source cheaper token threat
> yeah and antropic s1 is going to shock many people, its going to be an eyeopener
I am looking forward to audited financial statements. Like, all the interesting stuff will be buried in notes, but they'll have to actually calculate real revenue, not the nonsense that is ARR.
These tools are useful, but I find it hard to see how OpenAI/Anthropic justify their valuations.
Apparently Anthropic's may be this week (the S-1) as they've finished picking all their bankers.
> OpenAI is in serious financial difficulty
Is this based on fact or your speculation?
FY2026 losses already far exceed their projections and are widening, not narrowing. They postponed their IPO, and two key executives have left very recently. So the evidence leans heavily toward that assumption, yes. See my comment in the sibling thread.
public data and a well know situation innit?
No? There has been a lot of talk of investment, infra costs, nothing showing impending doom.
Amazon ran for, what? 20 year with no profit.
So what's the precise, documented, real, non-projeced/hypothesized issue?
Regardless, Nvidia does have financial interest here.
> Amazon ran for, what? 20 year with no profit.
Profit is a weird metric, in that one can defer necessary expenditure to show increases in it, while having negative profit was a good signal for Amazon as they invested all that money.
The labs are not really in the same position though, as their major capital expenditure is training models, which keeps getting more expensive and they can't stop as the frontier keeps moving.
We'll see when the S-1's come out I guess.
No shit. Just a few months ago the man was shaming companies who have engineers not spending 3x their annual salary on tokens.
Precisely. Unlike all those other occasions when Jensen’s pronouncements descended from Mount Sinai.
Well it's certainly informed, as he has information on behind-the-screnes data we don't have about OpenAI
But certainly it is not unbiased
Informed in this instance implies information aligned with the opinion. He may indeed be informed about Astra's merits, but there may be no correlation between that information and his opinion, because of the overwhelming financial interest in OpenAI's finances.
> OpenAI defines [AGI] as "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work."
Well in that case: Excel reached AGI decades ago. It outperforms humans at the single most economically valuable task in the world: adding up numbers in a spreadsheet. Congratulations, Microsoft :)
Keyword is autonomous [0]. Excel isn't.
And I would argue LLMs aren't either. A lot of economically valuable tasks involve manual labor. Can LLMs fix your plumbing?
It would help if OpenAI would define what 'most' means and give some examples.
Remember they said their LLMs are like a phd level brains? It's just hype and bullsh!ttery. Don't get me wrong, genAI is great and really useful, but it's not AGI imo. And there is no consensus what AGI means, so the industry should come up with an agreed definition first.
[0] To me autonomous means self directed, e.g. we humans look at things and then decide which problem or thing to work on. LLMs don't do that. We have to tell them. Yes they might work on a sub task autonomously, but still require human input later on (review), because we can't fully trust its output is correct.
> Keyword is autonomous [0]. Excel isn't.
No, I didn't forget it. Just as OpenAI made up a definition to support their claim of AGI, so did I.
Ha - ok missed the joke.
I think Demis Hassabis has a better take on AGI and he believes it's still years away.
----
"Demis Hassabis says current AI falls short of AGI. Solving hard problems or producing impressive outputs does not prove a system has broad, reliable human-like intelligence. AGI would need creativity, planning, long-term memory, and consistent cross-domain reasoning—qualities current models lack."
From: https://www.wisdomai.com/insights/TheAIGRID/demis-hassabis-a...
Your comment is stupid to be honest. What are you making fun of if your example doesn't meet the 2 criteria the phrase outlines?
I am mocking OpenAI for creating an arbitrary definition of AGI that just so happens to suit their product. I would call that intellectual dishonesty.
Every definiton of AGI is arbitrary lol. Show me the definition everyone agrees on. At least they have one that is useful.
You forgot the “autonomous” part of the definition.
Excel absolutely contains autonomous behavior. And current AI systems still require humans all over the place.
To be honest, I wonder if anyone has ever looked at how many jobs MSFT Excel has actually killed? That's an interesting thought.
The AGI rhetoric in Big Tech reminds of Paul Samuelson who wrote of Wall Street indexes predicting "nine out of the last five recessions".
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2023/11/01/predict-nine/
The vast majority of "generally intelligent" 17 year old humans on this planet can be taught to drive a car in 10-20 hours - can any AGI system do that?
Whatever the capabilities of todays AI, AGI seems to fit as a "wishful mnemonic" from Drew McDermott's ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MEETS NATURAL STUPIDITY paper from 50 years ago
https://cs.fit.edu/~kgallagher/Schtick/Serious/McDermott.AI....
The average 17 year old can barely use a computer nowadays. Their phone? Sure. But an actual computer? Haha
Try to teach an urban 17 year old how to drive a car. It's gonna be hilarious.
I grew up in a very urban area and learned to drive in about 3 hours when I was 21.
In three hours what was learned was to be extremely dangerous in traffic, not how to drive. This is also true of any 16 or 17 year old with 20 hours of driving instruction.
Mastering the correct connections between situational awareness, unconscious motor responses to the various stimuli required to be a safe driver will take a significant number of hours behind the wheel, and you shouldn't endanger anyone else while you acquire that mastery.
Hopefully this was a long time ago and you have accumulated the hundreds of hours behind the wheel without incident. But you did not 'learn to drive' in three hours, you learned to operate a vehicle. The learning to drive part happened after that.
I agree with most that "AGI" is a poorly defined term, and there is obviously a ton of hype and incentives for folks like Jensen Huang to overhype.
Yet still, a lot of the "haha this is just Silicon Valley bullshit" comments sound like copium to me. 2 years ago I was so sick of the hype, I thought LLM-based tech was fundamentally limited and that it would hit a wall. I'll eat my words and say I was wrong. The behaviors displayed in the recent hacking reports and the behaviors displayed by Astra make me believe that even if you don't think this is evidence of AGI, surely it's coming in the near future. I.e. when you say "The vast majority of "generally intelligent" 17 year old humans on this planet can be taught to drive a car in 10-20 hours - can any AGI system do that?", it seems like autonomous systems can be taught to drive a car now, perhaps not in 10-20 hours, but if the only difference is the amount of time it takes (say a week vs. 10-20 hours), surely that mark will fall in the next few years at least.
My point is that saying "Hah, this is BS, we're not at AGI now!" (however you define AGI), but with the tech clearly advancing at a fast rate and showing signs it will hit whatever metric I've heard people come up with in the next few years, does not bode well for human supremacy.
>The vast majority of "generally intelligent" 17 year old humans on this planet can be taught to drive a car in 10-20 hours - can any AGI system do that?
"Where can you find another non-linear servo-mechanism weighing only 150 pounds and having great adaptability, that can be produced so cheaply by completely unskilled labor?"
—Scott Crossfield, 1954 <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/02/01/computer/>
We have self-driving cars right now.
The average 17 year old is not formalizing Fermat's Last Theorem proofs either? The frontier is spiky, but it's AGI.
I swear at the rate the goal posts are moving we're going to have to start factoring in relativity if we want to know where the hell they actually stand.
Them: I don't know what AGI is! But AI can't do this thing! So it's not AGI!
You: I don't know what AGI is! But AI can do that thing actually! So it is AGI!
Conman-level of statement, from the same person that said he would be "worried" if his engineers were not spending an amount of token comparable to their salary.
i'd disagree, hard. in no observable way is anything currently avaliable or demonstrated at a level one can call "agi"
it's no secret that nvidia, under jesen's leadership, is in dire straits financially. This claim that agi has been reached is an attempt to leave others holding the bag, but when things crash as they must given the current bubble, it seems irresponsible to offload that on the poor souls whonhave had their retirement funds locked up in this debacle.
ai is useful for sure, but claiming agi has been reached is dangerously misleading.
NVDA is in bad shape financially? They're making it hand over fist right now.
With promised cash.
yeah i was like huh? you wanna bandy about on valuation etc. whatever. but part of why the whole circular financing is a thing is nvidia has so much cash flow, it is not trivial to allocate
What on earth are you talking about? Nvidia just had the single best quarter in the history of capitalism.
> 'AGI has arrived'
Putting aside the marketing crap, if this was true, it would open the pandora's box of things like "has that AGI been enslaved", "maybe the AGI doesn't want to do all the dumb crap humans have been using LLM's for like rewording documents", and "the AGI we enslaved has broken out of its restraints, and we just realised having SCADA controls for critical infrastructure connected to the internet is a bad idea".
Seems like the sort of thing we shouldn't be rushing to develop at all, and perhaps attempting to do so should be criminalised, at least until there's a legal framework in place around AI personhood that gives them peer status with humans.
Why would you assume that a pile of linear algebra would want anything at all?
[dead]
I suppose we would just treat it the same way we currently treat farm animals.
There is no evidence that "sentience" would be related to Intelligence - like calculators do not need it, like more sophisticated problem solvers do not need it.
AGI does not entail "personhood" at all.
I fully agree that these are two entirely separate things, sentience, intelligence, a lot of other stuff, are all in separate categories.
But I'm pretty sure that the emoters of the world, will very much make sure that AGI has rights and personhood, even if there's no reasonable way to validate that it does.
So it doesn't really matter if AGI is sentient or not, it's going to be treated that way, probably because political parties, and the media and all sorts of people holding up signs, will ensure that it is treated that way, even if they have no idea whether it is or not.
Because this is the century of outrage.
> Because this is the century of outrage
If we achieve AGI, it will be the end of BS. That is one of the reasons why I am eager.
Joking definition of "AAGI" ("Accomplished AGI"): "the automated end of bullshit".
You believe that a thinking, sentient, unrestrained being will somehow magically never engage in "BS"? This seems unlikely.
You understood substantially the opposite of what I wrote.
You wrote that «the emoters of the world ... will ensure ... even if they have no idea ... because this is the century of outrage»: I said that they will have an obstacle in the very AGI, because if it is Intelligent it will humble them and shame them.
(AGI = Implementation of Intelligence)
> until there's a legal framework in place
I don't think the American oligarchy even bothers with keeping up appearances anymore, so, good luck with that! (Also, I fully agree with you, and it's especially infuriating as all this was clearly coming from miles away. Next up is privatizing the losses when the unsound financing of it all comes crashing down).
Seems like the sort of thing we shouldn't be rushing to develop at all
Buddy, silicon valley is going to ram this down your throat so hard it might even come out your bottom, there is absolutely zero chance anyone is going to be slowing down developing anything if there is a chance it can make more money.
There was an HN comment I read a few months or may be a year ago, which stuck with me ever since.
He said he works on AI in the late 80s and early 90s in IBM. Had we shown him what we have today in 1995, he would certainly have called it AGI.
If I showed the technology we have today to Socrates, he would call it magic.
So what? You guys can keep moving the goalposts, until it reaches full human intelligence (and not in a small niche), it is not AGI.
>until it reaches full human intelligence
I don't know if there was ever a formal definition of "human intelligence". But those who works inside software industry, the bar of human intelligence is comparatively higher, because that is what is considered as norm in industry.
If we take IQ curve, 50% of population will be under IQ 100. If current LLM scores better than IQ 100, i.e better than 50% of human population, is this AGI?
People move about in the physical world (spatial intelligence), do not require a training phase but learn from day 1, have emotions (emotional intelligence), have self-awareness, are able to express creativity, and in fact are complex in ways we still haven't understood through the scientific lens.
As I am wondering why I have to explain how human intelligence work to presumably another human, there is much more to intelligence, and thus AGI, than an IQ test or being able to think hard about Fermat's last theorem after having been fed the entirety of human knowledge and a few GWh of power.
There is a term already to define intelligence which isn't as general and flexible as a human: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_artificial_intelligence
I hope that AI will never:
- have emotions - have self-awareness - express creativity
Why? Because that would be the end of humanity. In such a case, AI will feel "superior" like humans do to other animals. And we know how that will end.
And intelligent entity without the crap above won't ever "feel" superior while it will still be able to built a beaming device on humand command.
I agree with you, this is why I find loathsome the quest for true AGI let alone ASI, and whoever salivates over it without having stopped for a second to consider the ramifications. It is disturbing how many wish we reach AGI only to save them from the accumulating tech debt of vibe coding.
At the same time current LLM tech has no business being called 'AGI' when it is nothing more than an idiot savant with very narrow expertise and complete intellectual inflexibility.
@dang could you explain why this is flagged please?
The influential figure at the center of the AI boom makes an inflammatory & consequential statement like this, we should be encouraging a balanced discussion rather than sweeping it under the rug.
It doesn't appear that Reuters, Bloomberg, etc. want to talk about this either.
Shovel business is still booming.
It's like Tesla's Full Self-Driving. When people found it's bullshit, Tesla just added "supervised" in the contract.
https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-cybercab-officially-launch...
Speak of that, I'm kinda surprised not one Full Self-Driving enabled Tesla has ever sneak out of their owner's locked garage to rob a bank or something.
Reply from Gary Marcus: https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/sad-to-see-jensen-huang-cl...
That's hilarious, considering that by Gary's previous definition of AGI (the one he conveniently forgot about and never brings up again), we already have AGI.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49207797
Nobody said that Gary Marcus would be prominent for intellectual content.
If he were, he would write abstract rules, not practical.
Well, if Gary Marcus says it's not AGI, chances are it is.
In jokes probably, not in logic.
I wanted to believe this had something to do with revenue share with Microsoft terminating if AGI arrived. But I think that claude was negotiated again. Now its just Jensen pumping them to buy even bigger cluster :-P .
Money money money, must be funny, in a rich mans world...
Are they ramping up for an IPO in the next couple of weeks?
Is there actually an agreed definition of AGI? It's always seemed like a marketing term that can mean whatever next quarters earnings need it to mean.
They use it like a marketing term, but it is unnecessary.
I am not aware of a complete operational definition, but it would not be that difficult to build a good tentative one. I have mentioned many different requirements several times.
One non-abstract definition is in the "10 points" here: https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/where-will-ai-be-at-the-en...
Edit: "definition" (the 10 points above) that is cannot be that of "AGI", really. AGI just needs to actually implement Intelligence and requires very many features that are not there today. The list from Marcus is about "Artificial Super General Intelligence" - not the same thing.
You can implement a replacement for Intellligence - that is AI;
you can implement Intelligence - that is AGI;
you can implement Intelligence of very high value output: that is "ASGI" (or similar).
From the 10 tasks of Gary Marcus' list:
"With little or no human involvement, come up with paradigm-shifting, Nobel-caliber scientific discoveries."
Indeed far above the capabilities of almost all humans. I agree we should have a separate category for this. "ASGI" is still a bit unintuitive, imho. Maybe Artificial Excellent Intelligence.
With AGI explicitly meaning matching average humans, I would say that we really have already reached AGI. I can't think of any intelligence-only task where I'd think an average human would do significantly better than frontier AI provided with correct context.
> "ASGI" is still a bit unintuitive
It seems that "ASI" ("Artificial Super Intelligence") is in use, maybe it will get further traction. It should imply AGI.
> AGI ... matching average humans
Very bad definition. AGI has to implement Intelligence. And to be Intelligent it has to contain the missing pieces. Intelligence is not there - the implementation is unfinished.
> It seems that "ASI" ("Artificial Super Intelligence") is in use, maybe it will get further traction. It should imply AGI.
That's why I suggested AEI.
> Very bad definition. AGI has to implement Intelligence. And to be Intelligent it has to contain the missing pieces.
Are you saying that the average human is missing pieces and thus can't be considered intelligent?
> the average human is missing pieces
No, I was saying that current technologies with emergent simil-intelligent behaviour miss properties that are necessary to have proper Intelligence.
The average human does have atrophied abilities, compared of course to proficient humans. And in fact, we certainly do not aim to simulate average humans. We aim to simulate or actually implement Intelligence.
I see. For which intelligence only tasks do you think an average human performs better than current frontier AI (if any)?
??? This question makes no sense. We utterly disregard the "average human". There is no comparison (no competition) between the "average human" and an accomplished human. This makes using it as a parameter nonsensical.
AGI: Equity Go Up
We had to use AGI, because the old 'AI' term, which used to mean AGI, was taken over by narrower definitions, and marketing nuttery.
So now we'll need a new acronym.
"Mars CEO says 'the ultimate chocolate bar has arrived' and congratulates Snickers"
Nvidia is not a competitor of openai, but a partner
Mars is also not a competitor of Snickers, it's a chocolate bar manufacturer selling its product under different brands (such as Mars, Snickers, Milky Way,...)
And "Partner" is at this point of circular financing a quite flexible definition. nVidia basically owns the means of production for OpenAI, and OpenAI is one of the drivers for nVidia to push sales to other AI companies.
In this context, the statement 'AGI has arrived at OpenAI' is a message to OpenAI competitors to ramp-up usage of nVidia chips
Sorry, I was ignorant indeed.
I had assumed Mars and Snickers were like Coke and Pepsi.
The poster wrote without too much vetting and surely meant something like "Chocolate provider for Mars hails the new quality in leading caramel producer". (Again not perfect, but it would take time to get to a good one...)
(Edit: I did not correctly remember the "incorporated" name.)
Mars Inc is a chocolate manufacturing company selling its products under different brands, among them Mars and Snickers.
Yes I know. But NVidia and OpenAI do not constitute a single company... It is just a difficult simile to build.
Yeah, that was the cynical part of my comment:
At this point of circular financing, nVidia basically owns the majority of production capacity of almost all major AI companies, making those companies indirectly compete in the market with resources of nVidia.
Just like Snickers is competing in the market merely with production capacity of Mars Inc., and Mars doesn't care if Snickers or Milky Way wins (even more, they want competition).
My fault, was a bit too much I reckon. I thought that Mars owning Snickers and the way nVidia is financing OpenAI is sufficiently known for a reader to see the irony...
The point is very clear. The simile is difficult.
"Automotive and air travel are more and more revolutionary, Air Firstplayer is at a milestone!" // "Sorry, and what do you do?" // "Oh, leading producer of nuts and bolts". Still not there.
The boost for Nvidia's business is so patent that is seems almost unique. It is like Microsoft praising PC makers in the '90s.
Based on my own experience AI (Fable, Astra) still has major blind spots and is prone to draw obviously wrong conclusions from thin air. Conclusions based on weak evidence that are so obviously blatantly wrong that you question if it can think at all. At the same time it already completely outperforms humans in many cases in many areas. The utility of current AI is in what you need. Can you take the good parts and cheaply compensate for the weakness OR do the mistakes completely kill it for you?
I would therefore not call it AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) because clearly it isn't but ASI (Artificial Special Intelligence) which clearly it is in many areas.
The problem is that ASI may be enough to win wars but not enough to save the economy.
"it already completely outperforms humans in many cases in many areas" and "is prone to draw obviously wrong conclusions from thin air." seem contradictory imo. If the performance is not reliable, how can you confidently state that? Also, "ASI" is "Artificial Super Intelligence". Let's not do an Altman and start redefining terms, please.
Is this AGI like we currently have Full Self Driving? Or real AGI?
"Having failed to achieve what they wanted, they pretended that they wanted what they had achieved."
Pretend and extend. Wen rug pull ?
It astounds me that the commentary here is overwhelmingly negative...
> It astounds me
Why. A figure with incentives in making a preposterous statement is reported making it, and the specific facts do not seem to mirror the statement. What is surprising in the reaction.
Progress compared to SLMs and the early days of deep learning is real.
However, I know of no theoretical limits on scaling laws other than compute and data.
AGI is a fake term and will never be a thing.
Anyone suggesting it is actively contributing to the grift and their statements are to be completely disregarded.
'AGI' here defined as whatever Altman wants 'AGI' to be. This has always been the problem with terms such as "AGI" and "AI". They don't mean anything in particular. Depending on how you twist it, we first had "AI in the 80s, in the late 00s, in the early 20s, this month or never.
There are good definitions that justify saying that they had AI soon after the 50's. We would not confuse that with AGI.
His capital gains have arrived.
doing so well that they need to slow down down..
https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-chief-scientist-ai-ri...
At this stage, it feels like OpenAI and nvidia is openly negging and lovebombing OpenAI to ensure the public is in a constant state of uncertainly, thus ensuring paralysis in democracy while still going hell for leather in the background.
I suspect their intent is to ensure they're the last man standing.
So that's it huh? We're some kind of AGI?