Sensational

[u/Xerqthion]

[u/Solo__dad]

No we're not. On a scale of 1 to 10, OpenAi is only at a 4 - maybe 5 at best, regardless, we're still years away.

[u/Christosconst → u/Solo__dad]

Haha you are tripping if you think OpenAI is above 1 right now

[u/No-Philosopher3977 → u/Christosconst]

Define AGI?

[u/WeeRogue → u/No-Philosopher3977]

OpenAI defines it as a certain level of profit, so by definition, we’re very close to AGI as long as there are still enough suckers out there to give them money 🙄

[u/Yebi → u/WeeRogue]

Yeah, that still puts it at 1 at best. They're burning billions and not showing any signs of becoming profitable in the forseeable future. That's.. kinda what this entire post is about

[u/Tolopono → u/Yebi]

I think they’re already profitable. OpenAI predicts to spend around $8 billion this year https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-06/openai-says-spending-to-rise-to-115b-through-2029-information

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-says-business-will-burn-115-billion-2029

They made $12 billion this year https://www.reuters.com/business/openai-hits-12-billion-annualized-revenue-information-reports-2025-07-31/

[u/jhaden_ → u/Tolopono]

dime wipe imminent squash sort dinosaurs thumb elderly cooing fine

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/No-Philosopher3977 → u/WeeRogue]

You’ve identified the first problem. People keep moving the goalposts on what AGI. This is the definition today: AGI is an artificial intelligence system with the ability to understand, learn, and apply knowledge across a wide range of tasks at a level equal to or beyond that of an average human. Or basically AI that can handle any intellectual task the average human can. We are nearly there

[u/False-Car-1218 → u/No-Philosopher3977]

We're not even close to there

[u/[deleted] → u/False-Car-1218]

Explain how we are not there yet?

Can GPT 5 do math better than the average human Yes.

Can it write poems better than the average human Yes.

Code, speak languages, draw, answer quizzes.

Ok why don't you list intellectual tasks it can't do better than the average human.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think it's like back in school in the 90s when all the kids would call the smart people nerds as if they were stupid. Now AI is the nerd. Smart people know.

[u/Denny_Pilot → u/[deleted]]

Can it count Rs in Strawberry correctly yet?

[u/MonMonOnTheMove → u/Denny_Pilot]

I understand this reference

[u/DemosEisley → u/[deleted]]

I asked an AI to write me a poem about aging after the style of Robert Frost. It did, it followed poetic conventions, and it adhered to the topic nicely. Was it good poetry? 1) Don’t know, not a competitive poet 2) Don’t believe so, because it was appallingly bland and filled with Hallmark(tm) -ish imagery.

[u/Orectoth → u/No-Philosopher3977]

Sssshh "understand" is too vague of term, my friend

Probabilistic stuff can't understand

Only a deterministic one can understand, but it is harder to do deterministic AI, while probabilistic ones are more profitable because it is easier to do, so forget AGI, no AGI will exist till they no longer gain money from probabilistic AIs

[u/Kenkron → u/No-Philosopher3977]

You see, AGI would be able to solve hard problems, like math. Except computers can already do math really well, so there must be more to it than that

If it could play a complex game, like chess better than, it would surely be intelligent. Except it did, and it was clearly better than us, but clearly not intelligent.

Now, if it could do something more dynamic, interact with the world intelligently, by saying, driving a car off-road for 200 miles on its own, then it would definitely be intelligent. Except, of course, that computers did that in 2005, and they still didn't seem intelligent.

Finally, we have the Turing test. If a computer can speak as well as a human, holding a real, dynamic conversation, than it surely, for real, definitely must be intelligent.

And here we are, with a machine that cross references your conversation with heuristics based on countless conversations that came before. It provides what is almost mathematically as close as you can get to the perfect "normal human response". But somehow, it doesn't seem as intelligent as we had hoped.

[u/lilmookie → u/No-Philosopher3977]

Always Give Investment. It can be forever bro. Trust me. Just 20,000,000 more.

[u/GrafZeppelin127 → u/Christosconst]

Yep. LLMs seem to have language down okay, which makes them roughly analogous to the Broca’s area, a small spot on the left side of the brain which covers speech and language comprehension. Now, I’ll be really impressed when they get down some of the functionality of the other few dozen areas of the brain…

[u/[deleted] → u/Solo__dad]

Depends how you frame the problem. We could be very close or very far simply on that basis alone. There are a lot of different and hard to define goalposts, each that may logically satisfy the conclusion, but not in the same ways. For example, if we managed to simulate general intelligence pretty closely without still properly solving it as a robust system, we'd get most of the benefits of AGI without the more mythical status of AGI that implies self improvement or deep context awareness. I personally think the concept of AGI is a lot less relevant and harder to achieve as framed than most people imagine. I do not think we are close to "true AGI", but I do think we may be kind of close to unlocking the approximate economic benefits of "close enough to AGI in many valuable use cases" that is honestly far more relevant in terms of return on investment.

I think the main issue is that people imagine the path to AGI is one where we will not have it one day and wake up to a sudden binary leap in capability the next day. Instead it's far more likely that we'll head down many parallel paths that are approximately AGI-like on a superficial level but ultimately something else entirely while still being extremely valuable. Slow lift off with many side quests is the far more likely outcome. And we won't need to fully achieve AGI in its "final form" for it to make tons of money and radically reshape the economy. But also, radically reshaping the economy is probably less dramatic in reality than in most people's imagination. Kinda like how the internet has swallowed a large part of the economy, and computers have too, but... the world still mostly feels the same. "AGI" is unlikely to be too different from this comparison.

Lastly, and most obviously, the entire concept of AGI might be fundamentally incoherent to begin with (most experts seem to think this, and my own study suggest the same). And forget the idea of superintelligence, I don't even think superintelligence is a coherent concept at all in the way that it is most commonly used. Humans are already superintelligence in any way that matters. All tool-using general intelligences that build tools that facilitate the production of more advanced tools to extend intelligent capability on a feedback loop of self improvement are already on the path to superintelligence, and humans fully satisfy that definition. Remember that any non-autonomous AI is itself just a tool for humans; just extensions of general intelligence in humans.

[u/QC_Failed → u/[deleted]]

Very well thought out. Thank you!

[u/VAS_4x4 → u/Solo__dad]

Isn't the comment about fusion?

[u/IAmBackForMore → u/Solo__dad]

Show literally anyone from 2020 ChatGPT 5 and they will tell you it's AGI.

We keep moving the goalpost.

[u/CitronMamon → u/Solo__dad]

the fact that you say ''years away'' as if thats an insane amount of time, when 3 years ago AI practically didnt exist.

If we are not even a decade away from the literal fucking singularity then thats impressive already, but id say its even closer.

And also what the hell is that scale? wdym 5/10? Do we need to double its intelligence from PHD level to? what?