What study are you referring to here? The ones I've seen don't particularly resemble anything Turing described. The preprint from UCSD got heavy coverage in the popular press but its headline claim is an elementary statistical mistake, modifying the test so it's no longer a binary comparison but still treating 50% as a meaningful pass threshold. It hasn't yet passed peer review nine months later, and I'm cautiously optimistic that it never will.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40386571

this is probably a religious question so people will not be convinced of intelligent machines even if they have an EQ and IQ of 200 because they don't work the same way human cells do I suppose.

I do think it's true that anyone a decade ago would have predicted their capabilities are impossible without AGI, which suggests that the entire conceptual framework is less useful than we thought. The eventual debate about whether we've "reached AGI" will probably have a lot more to do with the contract between OpenAI and Microsoft than any real paradigm shift in capabilities.

That is AI. AI ≠ AGI.

This is not AGI.

Let's take an old version of the Wikipedia page about AGI, from end of 2022, before the ChatGPT craze: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_genera...

> Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn __any__ intellectual task that a human being can.

LLMs are nowhere near this. Not even close.

But let's get even more restrictive by looking at the actual required characteristics to declare a system an AGI:

> There is wide agreement among artificial intelligence researchers that intelligence is required to do the following:

> - reason, use strategy, solve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty;

> - represent knowledge, including common sense knowledge;

> - plan;

> - learn;

> - communicate in natural language;

> - and integrate all these skills towards common goals.

> Other important capabilities include:

> - input as the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc.), and

> - output as the ability to act (e.g. move and manipulate objects, change own location to explore, etc.)

Once again, LLMs are not even scratching the surface of AGI.

Of course if you look at the current version of the page, where the bar has been massively lowered, it might look like AGI is achieved, but that's because the definition has changed, not the technology.

Curriculum isn’t moving fast enough. Just a few years ago every teacher had to adapt for COVID and go 100% online/remote in many areas. Kids are still turning in every assignment online, even in classroom settings in my district.

So, yeah, kids can just paste the question into ChatGPT and copy the answer. Nobody learns anything.

This isn’t AI ruining education, it’s schools being under-resourced and unable to move as quickly as society is changing. Teachers are still buying their own supplies, how can they adapt their entire curriculum in the course of a couple years to work under this entirely new paradigm of LLMs?

Give it a bit and I am convinced schools will go back to oral reports, handwritten essays and whatever is needed to make sure children are not just pasting garbage back and forth

Honestly, I think this is what we need to kill toxic social media and phone addiction as well. If AI forces us to talk and interact as a community again, it’s a win. Leave the internet to the bots and AI.

You either accept that change happens and use your life experience to help shape it in a positive direction or, well… I dunno. Become a old curmudgeon and watch the world blow by you.

The current state of LLMs _can_ be helpful for education. Millions of people use them as such and benefit from it.

A far bigger problem with the technology IMO is the generative aspect. We already have a large problem with disinformation and spam on the internet, and generative AI will increase this by many orders of magnitude. Discerning fact from fiction is already difficult today; it will be literally impossible to do in the future, _unless_ we invent more technology to save us from it. This is a problem we haven't even begun to address. The public is collectively blinded by the novelty of the technology, while entrepreneurs are jumping over themselves trying to profit from the latest gold rush. Very few people with the power to change anything are actually thinking about the long-term, or even mid-term, impacts.

I was talking with someone in a non-tech industry and we have such a long way to go for even decades-old information system improvements. They don't even have basic things like an effective system of record or analytics. They have no way to measure the success of any particular initiative. If revenue is down - they don't really know why, they just randomly change stuff until it hopefully goes back up.

If GPT 4.5 had nothing of value to offer other than a flex of opening eyes ability to scale, it’s still a signal that they have the chops to throw the most amount of compute at the upcoming reinforcement learning race.

If you’re actually selling enterprise solutions in this space, you’ll quickly learn that a large number of Enterprises have their own private deployment of open AI on Azure and are pushing their vendors to use that even if it means they get lower quality outputs for certain use cases.

Data and model quality aren’t the only moat-able features.