Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful youāll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cutānāpaste it into its own post ā thereās no quota for posting and the bar really isnāt that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many āesotericā right wing freaks, but thereās no appropriate sneer-space for them. Iām talking redscare-ish, reality challenged āculture criticsā who write about everything but understand nothing. Iām talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. Theyāre inescapable at this point, yet I donāt see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldnāt be surgeons because they didnāt believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I canāt escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this. Also, happy 4th July in advanceā¦I guess.)
Have any of the big companies released a real definition of what they mean by AGI? Because I think the meme potential of these leaked documents is being slept on.
The definition of AGI being achieved agreed on between Microsoft and OpenAI in 2023 is just: when OpenAI makes a product that raises $100B.
Seems like a fun way to shut down all the low quality philsophical wankery. Oh, AGI? You just mean $100B profit, right? Thatās what your lord and savior Altman means.
Maybe even something like a cloud to butt browser extension? AGI -> $100B in OpenAI profits
āWhat $100B in OpenAI Profits Means for the Future of Humanityā
Iām sure someone can come up with something better, but I think thereās some potential here.
Actually Generate Income.
For purposes of something easily definable and legally valid that makes sense, but it is still so worthy of mockery and sneering. Also, even if they needed a benchmark like that for their bizarre legal arrangements, there was no reason besides marketing hype to call that threshold āAGIā.
In general the definitional games around AGI are so transparent and stupid, yet people still fall for them. AGI means performing at least human level across all cognitive tasks. Not across all benchmarks of cognitive tasks, the tasks themselves. Not superhuman in some narrow domains and blatantly stupid in most others. To be fair, the definition might not be that useful, but itās not really in question.
I found this footnote from Sam Altmanās blog amusing in light of your comment: