> Does any of that argument really matter? And frankly, this statement.
My definition of a complete AGI is: an AI that can read JIRA tickets, talk with non-programmers and do all my job and get me and all/most software engineers fired and proves sustainable.
But in general, it's an AI that can do any remote-work just as good as humans.
Re:A Definition of AGI
by 2muchcoffeeman on Monday October 27, 2025 @06:14AM
(#45719228)
Have we shown what the human brain does at a “hardware” level? Or are you just assuming that the basic building block of a computer is that same as the basic building block of a human brain?
I'm not assuming anything, I thought my post made that clear.
Basic building blocks are atoms. So, yes same. If you mean cells vs transistors, sure they're different. But we don't have to demonstrate anything to know that nature already made conscious intelligent AGI without it itself not understanding anything. Therefore AGI can be created without knowing what consciousness is. It happened at least once.
>This makes it to my mind impossible to train a model to be aware
feels wrong. If you're arguing that human's are aware, then it is apparent that it is possible to train something to be aware. Nature doesn't have any formal definition of intelligence, or awareness, yet here we are.
From a practical perspective, it might be implausibly difficult to recreate that on computers, but theoretically, no reason why not.