back
1 comments
I think the most useful definition is "any system that can trivially be taught to exceed humans at any cognitive or fine-motor task at a price over a reasonable time and scaling horizon lower than hiring a median human to perform that task." Essentially the definition that means economic checkmate for humans over a short timeframe.

When I say "trivially" I mean within an order of magnitude of 1/10 an average publicly traded company's expenses for work in that domain. When I say reasonable I mean any time between 10 seconds and 6 months, and ignoring deflationary effects of AGI itself with respect to its pricing superiority.

We have already achieved that. 2.8 Billion people live on less than $2 dollars a day. You are just lucky in that you aren't one of them, but you also don't have the skills they do. Hell you probably can't even go a day without saying Pareto.
What does this response even mean? That we have AGI because there are 2.8 skillful albeit impoverished people? Your insult is a non-sequitur with respect to the point of this thread.
If anything could approach a tenth of what AGI is supposed to be, we will all have to live with $2 because that AI will be closely guarded by a few billionaires. Human greed will not disappear if a philosophical concept right out of science fiction books comes to life.

I'm not positive at all about what AI can bring to humanity.