The Five Stages of AGI Grief
We recorded 7 claims from this post. 3 were checked against evidence. 4 can’t be checked. 2 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (7)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“In reality, the definition of AGI, while not perfect, is reasonably clear — and has been reasonably clear — for a long time.”
Our reading: The definition of AGI, though imperfect, is reasonably clear and has been for a long time.
No horizon
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“That’s just obviously not so, e.g., “write a biography of X individual without making stuff up” remains pretty unreliable; same for frontier models if you ask them to “play grandmaster level chess without making up illegal moves”.”
Our reading: It is obviously not true that frontier language models can perform competently at pretty much any information task that humans can do, that can be posed and answered in natural language, and that has quantifiable performance; for example, writing a biography of an individual without making things up remains pretty unreliable, as does playing grandmaster-level chess without making illegal moves.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The unresolved result reflects missing matched evidence, not evidence that the models were reliable.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“Some people shift their goalposts; others try to duck specifying goalposts altogether.”
Our reading: In AGI discussions, some people shift their goalposts while others, including Altman, avoid specifying any.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: Omission, inconsistency, and deliberate evasion are different propositions.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“If a lot of people’s goalposts have moved, mine have not. same as before, I will be satisfied if and when we reach AI systems are “flexible and general, with resourcefulness and reliability comparable to (or beyond) human intelligence” – and not until.”
Our reading: Marcus's goalposts for AGI have not moved: he will be satisfied if and when AI systems are flexible and general, with resourcefulness and reliability comparable to or beyond human intelligence, and not until.
No horizon
Qualifier: if and when AI systems are flexible and general, with resourcefulness and reliability comparable to (or beyond) human intelligence
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“There are some applications where the current systems are reliable enough to be practically useful, though not nearly as many as is often claimed.”
Our reading: Current AI systems are reliable enough to be useful in some applications, but far fewer than often claimed.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: The claim identifies no advertised comparison set, common unit for counting applications, or standard for practical reliability.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
Forecast
“No doubt the next generation of systems will have greater abilities and more extensive applications and will somewhat mitigate the weaknesses.”
Our reading: The next generation of AI systems will have greater abilities and broader applications and will somewhat mitigate current weaknesses.
Settled before its deadline Evidence as of
Limitation: Support uses the ordinary directional reading, not a claim that every successor or application improved.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“Current models trained on next-token prediction have remarkable abilities and remarkable weaknesses. The scope of those abilities and weaknesses of the current systems is not well understood.”
Our reading: Current next-token prediction models have remarkable abilities and weaknesses, whose scope is not well understood.
No horizon
Held from this post (2)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.