We are a LOT farther away than 5 years. What you see right now is a lot of hype from venture capitalists over chatbots.

I think any real AGI will have to have some kind of reasoning ability, and I don't see any sign of that in current AI.

protestantism for techbros. Boring. No machine will come and save you, just go to therapy instead.

Also the future is built, not predicted.

@BalakeKarbon What I'm about to say will be probably controversial, but I'll dive deeper into it nonetheless. Whenever we worry about some "Artificial General Intelligence", we are starting from a deeper anthropocentric pretense that only we have the "exclusivity" of something like "intelligence", when it's not.Take crows for instance: (a.k.a. New Caledonian crow) is known to be intelligent. They're capable of meta-tool usage, using tools for building/improving other tools (1)(1): For scientific/academic reference: , published in 2004 by University of Auckland authored by Gavin R. Hunt and Russell D. Gray, DOI 10.1007/s10071-003-0200-0.Sure, no crows sent probes to sidereal space, and crows don't seem to tinker with fire, either. But what is intelligence, exactly? How intelligence can be defined and measured? And, most importantly, how intelligence/sentience can be distinguished from mere neurological activity driven by highly-complex (yet pretty deterministic) chemical-physical phenomena and, thus, distinguished as "True Will" (okay, this term is far from scientific, it's actually a Thelemic term)?Because when you look both deep up and deep down, respectively at the cosmic level and molecular level (), we're not that better than biological automatons, ruled by strict laws of physics and biological programming (a.k.a. ) which is also driven by genetic, environmental, and societal constraints.Specifically, "societal constraints" gets even more interesting. Derren Brown can be controversial (especially due to how he describes himself as ), but some of his documentaries (especially ) perfectly depict how individuals can be easily influenced by a collective of individuals.Then there's this interesting scene from the movie where Cherry talks to a elder Gareth (her creator) about how she's constrained by her initial directives: even though she choose to do something else (ballet), it's something driven by that very initial programming.Then there's a myriad of thinkers who once philosophized about the subject, such as Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Camus (especially ), Cioran, among others. Yeah, I mentioned the possibly "top pessimistic" ones and my list is biased in that regard.My musings are fatalistic and deterministic, but that's part of what Science currently knows to this day: that (Carl Sagan, Cosmos TV Series) and, just like stars and other celestial bodies, we're bound to cosmic constraints, such as entropy and passage of time, fundamental forces, chemical reactions, and so on.Finally, back to neuroscience: what we refer to as "intelligence" seems to be a mere byproduct from synaptic interactions between gazillions of neurons, again, highly influenced by inner and outer factors through the lens of biological senses (and, to quote René Descartes, , pink doesn't exist as electromagnetic wavelength yet our eyes seem to "see" pink, a VR headset quickly trick our senses into perceiving motion pictures as "reality", we see faces (Belmez Faces) out of pareidolia as a byproduct of biologically pre-programmed pattern-matching, among other examples I could point out).So what's so different between humans and the so-called "AGI"? Especially if such AGI becomes "embodied" just like an , becoming a physical part of cosmic constraints and transience from spacetime continuum (both things define living beings as ; currently, AI is "timeless" in the sense that these Markov Chain algorithms have no embodied beingness, but "AGI" would imply something akin to Major Mira Killian from a "shell")...It's uncanny for to realize we're not exclusive as (that's why humans constantly crave for trying to control Nature, Cosmos and other humans), and the so-called "AGI", if such a thing would came into being, would be the ultimate, undeniable realization: our "mind" is a physical illusion (just biological smoke and mirrors) and there's no such thing as "free will", for we're condemned to obey cosmic constraints, from the vastness of continuum all the way down to atomic interactions.I'm so sorry to sound pessimistic and highly-verbose. I once tried to believe in something , but I've been long since out of faith as I realized my deterministic nature. As Science allows us to understand the cosmic mysteries, existence itself feels more and more devoid of , for whenever we stare at the cosmic abyss, the vast and dark abyss stares back at us and remembers us about our fleeting and deterministic nature as living beings.

That at the begining, I thought the principle was to make computer smarter and smarter so that they can reach the level of human brain. But it's seems they just try to make people dumber and dumber to reach level of current AI.

i reckon we won't have a solid consensus about when we first had AGI until at least a decade after it happens. maybe we already do (though i doubt it). How it shakes out on a societal level is hard to say, but so long as the utility functions are being written, explicitly or implicitly, by capitalists, i don't think it'll go well.

Most of us have no idea what that is, might be good to link something.

WTF, care to explain what AGI even is?

Not everybody lives in your reality bubble.

It's explained in The Matrix.

It's a whole lotta shite to sell you bs.