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 more 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.
Update: One reader pointed to the ARC-AGI test as a criterion. Here’s what the inventor of ARC said about this:
Update two: Although Jensen congratulated OpenAI today, about six months he already declared victory, pre-Astra, with respect to an earlier model.
I don't think these leaders care so much about definitions, if it helps their stock price.
Gotta keep those valuations rising. I think we can all see the shell game at this point, even if Wall Street can't.