Sad to see Jensen Huang claim that AGI has arrived, with no evidence and no definitions
Mirrored from Marcus on AI for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
A couple hours ago Jensen Huang declared that the race to AGI is over.
Unfortunately, Huang gave no evidence and no definitions, which feels to me like an effort at a takeover of a scientific question by corporate fiat.
I would urge him to read agidefinition.AI by Hendrycks, Yoshua Bengio & many others (including myself), and to consider how Astra is doing on the kinds of examples I laid out in my 10 -item bet with Brundage. Autoformalization may finally be in reach, and maybe (?) reliable coding; I doubt that Astra will have hit any of the other eight.
By conventional definitions, Astra still falls short.
Declaring victory without a definition simply muddies the waters.
Aside from the lack of definitions, I would expect that if Astra really were AGI, it would be a quantum leap ahead of its competitors. Instead, many see it as not much ,ore than on a par with Fable 5.1 in real-world applications:
And one well-respected set of benchmarks suggests that Astra is a genuine improvement but not significantly off-trend.
When real AGI arrives, we won’t need to squint our eyes.
And we won’t need Jensen’s approval, either. The results, at that point, will speak for themselves.
More from Marcus on AI
-
Top three ways Dario Amodei has blown his credibility in seven days
Sep 19
-
The real reason Trump is standing behind AI — and the latest example of why that might turn out to be a bad idea
Sep 18
-
Wake up, people. What we should actually fear, near term, is not so much rogue superintelligence as unleashed agentic AI causing hacking the internet at scale.
Sep 18
-
Liability, regulation, and AI’s new false dichotomy
Sep 17



Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.