Exactly. I read that parent comment thinking it was totally sarcastic at first, and then realized it was serious.

I wish everyone would stop using the term "AGI" altogether, because it's not just ambiguous, but it's deliberately ambiguous by AI hypesters. That is, in public discourse/media/what average person thinks, AGI is presented to mean "as smart as a human" with all the capabilities that entails. But then it is often presented with all of these caveats by those same AI hypesters to mean something along the lines of "advanced complex reasoning", despite the fact that there are glaring holes compared to what a human is capable of.

AGI is defined by the loss function. We are on the verge of a loss function that enables self determined rewards and learning and that to me is AGI. That is step 3.

You're just proving my point. "AGI is defined by the loss function" may be a definition used by some technologists (or maybe just you, I don't know), but to purport that that equals capability equivalence with humans in all tasks (again, which is how it is often presented to the wider public audience) shows the uselessness or deliberate obfuscation embedded in that term.

Well, I guess we will see what the discussion will be about in a couple months. You are right that 'AGI' is in the eye of the beholder so there really isn't a point in discussing it since there isn't an acceptable definition for this discussion. I personally care about actual built things and the things that will be built, and released, in the next few months will be in a category all their own. No matter what you call them, or don't call them, they will be extraordinary.

FWIW I've been following this field obsessively since the BERT days and I've heard people say "just a few months now" for about 5 years at this point. Here we are 5 years later and we're still trying to buy more runway for a feature that doesn't exist outside science-fiction novels.

And this isn't one of those hard problems like VTOL or human spaceflight where we can demonstrate that the technology fundamentally exists. You are ballparking a date for a featureset you cannot define and one that in all likelihood doesn't exist in the first place.

Everybody could lose their jobs but "It's still not AGI!!"