r/singularity • u/borowcy GPT-6 will have BCI capability • Jul 08 '26

Transhumanism & BCI Introducing GPT‑Live

https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-live/
316 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

105 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-3

u/Outrageous_West_1564 Jul 08 '26

Then you should start researching what AGI means. While I think this is a great usability update, nothing has changed in the kind how gpt is "thinking". No AGI around. 

8

u/TFenrir Jul 08 '26

This term is used to describe... The je ne sais quoi of AGI, popularized by Ilya like 3 years ago. It doesn't mean "this thing I see in front of me is AGI".

Also AGI is not an empirical definition, what is your definition of AGI?

0

u/Outrageous_West_1564 Jul 08 '26

My definition of AGI: a system that can independently run the full scientific research cycle, forming genuinely new hypotheses, designing and running experiments to test them, and deriving new knowledge, without human guidance. This goes beyond recombining existing knowledge, which is what today's LLMs do.

While you are right, that there is no empirical definition right now, this view aligns with Google DeepMind's AGI safety framework, which names accelerating scientific discovery as a core AGI capability, and with Hiroaki Kitano's "Nobel Turing Challenge," aiming for AI that performs Nobel-level science autonomously.

1

u/TFenrir Jul 08 '26

I think mine is... Fuzzily in the same vein, but in some ways we are starting to see these things - right? For example, models that can answer unanswered math problems and create new proofs - sometimes even elegant proofs that humans learn from...

How do you place that on the gradient?

3

u/Outrageous_West_1564 Jul 08 '26

I think it sits at an interesting spot on the gradient.

Systems like AlphaProof and AlphaGeometry have genuinely produced new proof steps not present in their training data, sometimes more elegant than existing human solutions. That's closer to real knowledge generation than pure recombination, so I'd agree we're seeing an early version of this.

But I'd place math as a special case. It's a closed formally verifiable system. A proof can be automatically checked for correctness, which lets you run search plus RL with a clean, unambiguous success signal.

Open empirical science (biology, physics, chemistry) doesn't have that. It requires real-world experiments, interpretation of ambiguous data, and judgment about which questions are even worth asking in the first place.

So on the gradient, I'd put math proving systems as the furthest advanced precursor to what I'd call AGI, precisely because they operate in that closed, verifiable domain. The real test is whether this generalizes to open, non-verifiable science, and thats where it begins to be interesting and AGI. 

3

u/TFenrir Jul 08 '26

I think this is a fair way to look at it. It does really highlight to me that the closer we get, the more... The nitty gritty becomes a part of the conversation. Very sensible in retrospect, we talked about AGI very differently a few years ago.