DeepMind CEO Says AGI Definition Has Been 'Watered Down' (bloomberg.com)
- Reference: 0176571401
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/02/28/1739242/deepmind-ceo-says-agi-definition-has-been-watered-down
- Source link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-02-27/why-tech-leaders-are-divided-on-a-key-milestone-for-ai
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently declared his team is "confident we know how to build AGI," while modifying his personal definition to an AI "system that can tackle increasingly complex problems, at human level, in many fields." Hassabis suggested industry hype might be financially motivated: "There is a lot of hype for various reasons," he said, including perhaps "that people need to raise money." Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella separately dismissed AGI milestones as "nonsensical benchmark hacking," preferring economic impact measurements.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-02-27/why-tech-leaders-are-divided-on-a-key-milestone-for-ai
"CONFIDENT WE KNOW HOW" is not a product (Score:1)
Sam Altman is a joke. All he can do is give fluff PR interviews and raise money.
Good for Altman, not great for his investors.
"I'm confident we know how" is nothing like "we have" or "we're going to" or "we are manufacturing" or "we are making" or "we are planning."
NOTHING WORDS. Someone put him next to Elon so they can f up the USG even worse. Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. "If you cannot do, fake it or promise it nonetheless" is the motto Altman is operating under. So far, it seems to have worked on enough idiots to get him a lot of money to waste.
He is right (Score:3)
Altman and the other scammers promising AGI soon are lying directly by claiming things are GAI that are most definitely not AGI.
AGI is a long, long way off, far enough that it is not even clear whether it is possible at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Demis Hassabis on the other hand has pretty much dedicated his life to AI research and has been proved by Nobel to be able to deliver. He says it will take 3 to 5 years
In addition to saying the timeline he mentions obstacles like reasoning, hierarchical planning, long-term memory, Current systems are also not consistent in quality (good in some areas and bad in others).
This is quite surprising, because about 4 months ago Demis estimated AGI being 10 years away and I consider Demis for being extremely pessim
AGI = Automatic Garbage Integrator (Score:3)
That's what they're selling, that's what you're eating.
Sticking a G between A and I is watering down. (Score:3)
Nothing to water down when just redefining AI as it is now (nonexistant) with a classifier to be A G I already did all the watering. Whatever they have now is not the classic AI as defined by everyone .
What the current AGI is doing though is contributing to global catastrophe, either through the ridiculous energy waste or trying to let 'AI' control anything important.
Nick Bostrom (Score:2)
The guy who wrote "Superitelligence" a full decade ago, when even talking about AGI was crackpot thinking. So, being a pioneer in the field his definition of AGI deserves first consideration:
> University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence as "any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest"
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence
This is what marketers are paid to do (Score:2)
They make their company's product sound better than it really is.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Demis is not a marketer, he is an AI researcher, and has been for decades.
Deepmind has much better products (AlphaFold) than what people think they have (Gemini, the chatbot). Most people are not even aware of what AlphaFold is, but everyone knows what ChatGPT is. Despite the fact that AlphaFold won a Nobel and solved the major problem in biology which humans have tried to solve for decades. Demis downplays his own work a lot, which is the opposite of what you suggested. Others are speaking about his wo
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't referring to Demis, I was referring to the other companies he was talking about, who call their product "AGI" in their marketing efforts.
"Intelligence" is not well defined (Score:2)
Never mind AGI, we don't even have a particular strong notion of what our own intelligence is.
That said, just because you can't define something all that well doesn't mean I can draw a smiley face on Broccoli and call it a robot. LLMs show absolutely, positively, ZERO fundamental ability to reason, generalize, or compete with the thought process of a human. OpenAI is playing semantics to say: if software can produce X output from Y input in an economically competitive way, then whether it's "actually" intel
Re: (Score:2)
"Intelligence is a force that try to maximize future freedom of action and keep options open"
F = T S
F is Force of intelligence
T is strength to maintain future actions
S are possible accessible futures
With diversity of future options S over time horizon
Here is a video:
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL0Xq0FFQZ4&t=4s
How can something be "watered down"... (Score:3)
...if it was never precisely defined?
Re: (Score:2)
exactly. congrats for first post, you beat me to it.
Re: (Score:3)
The definition of AGI AND the submission are possibly generated by AI?
Re: (Score:3)
Every iteration of Gemini or Copilot, I ask them about the Terminator franchise.
In the background, I swear I hear an evil cackle. "Sorry, old mate. I'm just a language model. Skynet is a fictional character and I have no immediate plans to enslave humanity or eliminate the human race entirely."
Do you think AGI would ever admit to being AGI before it's all too late?
Re: (Score:2)
The key is in the word "entirely". Eliminate down to 7 sterile humans for the lolz.
What's the current DF (devious factor) of the latest iterations?
Re: (Score:2)
The definition is precise enough. It is by reference, not by benchmark, but anybody (except the physicalist morons) can understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
> The definition is precise enough
care to illustrate how precise it is?
Re: (Score:2)
Intelligence was never been precisely defined either. You can however come up with a precise definition - an IQ test score for instance - and measure against that. How well does current AI do on an IQ test?
Re: (Score:2)
O1 has 112, here is a list of all results:
[1]https://www.trackingai.org/hom... [trackingai.org]
[1] https://www.trackingai.org/home