AGI is always AI, but AI isn’t always generally intelligent. AI is the parent category that AGI is a subcategory of. It’s like the difference between the terms “plant” and “dandelion.” All dandelions are plants, but not all plants are dandelions.
Early examples of AI came out in the 1960s, things that could solve algebra equations, give basic pschological interviews… They were “smart” in very limited scopes.
And that was my question. Are AGI now amy more real than a year ago? Or is this narrative just just big moneys wet dream and helpful in growing public acceptance of stupidAIs.
AGI is always AI, but AI isn’t always generally intelligent. AI is the parent category that AGI is a subcategory of. It’s like the difference between the terms “plant” and “dandelion.” All dandelions are plants, but not all plants are dandelions.
Early examples of AI came out in the 1960s, things that could solve algebra equations, give basic pschological interviews… They were “smart” in very limited scopes.
You missunderstood what i adked. I know very well the difference. What i don’t get is why promoting stupidAIs will “solve all problems”.
AGI is capable to solve all our problems. It’s not LLMs that Bostrom is talking about here.
And that was my question. Are AGI now amy more real than a year ago? Or is this narrative just just big moneys wet dream and helpful in growing public acceptance of stupidAIs.
AGI is purely theoretical at this point. Nobody has a truly generally intelligent AI system.