> Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity. We’re introducing updates to ChatGPT that improve everyday conversations while expanding access for Free users.
This clearly implies that they believe ChatGPT models are AGI and are now willing to say it out loud.
Which I think is a fair interpretation of the term. They are general purpose intelligence in that you can get help from them about almost anything. They are not like narrow single purpose AI models.
I don't think we need that term to mean "can completely emulate a human" or "can do every task any human on earth can do as well as them".
It also needs to be differentiated from ASI with godlike powers many times greater than human.
If we could show the current models to someone like Alan Turing, I am sure he would conclude that we have AGI.
And after half an hour using it he'd just admit that his test was way too simple as these models are still way too dumb
> This clearly implies that they believe ChatGPT models are AGI and are now willing to say it out loud.
Well, the models are smart enough to point out why this is wrong.
>It also needs to be differentiated from ASI with godlike powers many times greater than human.
Wasn't there a thread the other day about how very few humans on earth can understand the new math proofs?
Although "with sufficient study" vs "not even with unlimited study" are probably worth distinguishing there.
Which brings up another point in that we should have a term that distinguished between super intelligence in some capacity and godlike super intelligence.
"This clearly implies that they believe ChatGPT models are AGI and are now willing to say it out loud."
I cannot believe the comments I read on HN nowadays. ZERO critical thinking.