This is a question I've wondered for awhile. What are we saying when we say AGI? For it to make "generalized" reasoning it would need to also think like a human. This is where the quest for AGI fundamentally falls apart for me.
Before I continue, I just want to say that I LOVE working with AI. I use it for everything. Naturally, I began to wonder about the nature of intelligence. This led me to sentience. And of course you begin to reference the bodies of scifi work addressing consciousness and machine sentience.
I think for AGI to be a thing, it would need to not only need to be this massive multi modal machine, but also a machine with self-motivation. I think this is the key. Right now all AI requires input from a human to even do anything. It requires instructions (prompts).
When AI begins to self-prompt because it has its own desires outside of a human catalyzing it, and not only that, it speaks about its experiences as an AI -- I will then say that is probably AGI. But if we reach that point, we are in deeper ethical territories of do we get to "own" this sentient machine?
Before I continue, I just want to say that I LOVE working with AI. I use it for everything. Naturally, I began to wonder about the nature of intelligence. This led me to sentience. And of course you begin to reference the bodies of scifi work addressing consciousness and machine sentience.
I think for AGI to be a thing, it would need to not only need to be this massive multi modal machine, but also a machine with self-motivation. I think this is the key. Right now all AI requires input from a human to even do anything. It requires instructions (prompts).
When AI begins to self-prompt because it has its own desires outside of a human catalyzing it, and not only that, it speaks about its experiences as an AI -- I will then say that is probably AGI. But if we reach that point, we are in deeper ethical territories of do we get to "own" this sentient machine?