I'm with the authors on this. AGI was achieved a while ago already. Not in the sense of a grand final achievement of course, but in the sense of a minimum "viable" level, based on comparison with other generally intelligent entities - us. I also don't think that the bar for AGI is some major taboo that requires due testing before it's acknowledged. AGI doesn't even require ability to act in the real world (although really, give the current LLMs (or LLM-based applications) enough memory, a wallet and ability to sign web forms and ... well it's being done already.

The authors seem to be resisting one additional taboo which is comparison with HUMANS. Or at least tip-toeing around it. Isn't that bar passed already? Not in the sense of comparing the current LLMs to science fiction characters, or demanding that these LLMs get a degree (oh wait...) but again in the sense of the minimum level of GI that allows humans to survive in our society. Which is not much.

Granted current systems are still just plain bad at arithmetic - but just give them a web-based calculator. Same as some humans who are dangerous with simple numbers EVEN with a calculator. "Dangerous" but not fatal in the real world.

It seems to me that the simple ground under this result is that having large amounts of (english) random human text does cover most common sense and most basic tasks humans have to accomplish day to day. In retrospect, obviously it does - by definition. The current hobbling of "no access to tools or the web and no money" is an artificial limitation - which few humans have - and one that was too tempting to not be immediately fiddled against.

Comparisons on test scores are a good start (for comparing to humans). I don't know that they were already "gamed" - I mean human text does include test-prep books of which there are many. Fair. Still a comparison to humans.

The current LLMs, it seems to me, are still missing autonomous goals - or at least the option of autonomous, imposed or self-directed goals. We are just getting to the stage where an LLM can set to itself an intermediate goal (make a million dollars, achieve access to a pocket calculator, achieve access to Mathematica, add 1 then repeat) even within its explicit goal of giving a great answer. Is that required for AGI? Hmmm. Perhaps. Is that hard to retrofit? Doesn't seem so - their language base already has plenty of templated plans and personal story examples to achieve just about anything step by step.

Is consciousness or mere self-awareness necessary for AGI? I don't see why. Humans are self aware but that's irrelevant. A competent assistant without self awareness might be weird but still competent.

Is "true understanding" necessary for AGI? What does it mean if a specific LLM system is more competent than some specific human - while we have not tested for any "true understanding" in the human?

Another interesting observation is that LLMs have already "exceeded [the skills] imagined by its programmers or users". I hadn't made that remark but it's a great one. And then, did the people who developped the first generations of Fortran expect everything that came afterwards? So, does it matter? Certainly that happened fast this time!

Cool.

Do we have more links to tool-using LLMs out there?

How about wallet-using?

Are we ready to have AGIs employ humans? Is it already happening? How about next week? How much AGI applied work never shows on arxiv?