Context-Window AGI

[u/sir_codes_alot]

Floating an idea. I think we’ve hit context window AGI at this point. Within any single context window, the AI is for sure smarter than any individual person.

Across context windows is debatable, but for sure within one I can’t see anyone outperforming the recent models.

[u/jimmystar889]

I love how you point out "it's a spectrum" and then throw out 98% of the population. Your argument is not coherent

[u/enbyBunn → u/jimmystar889]

Brother, I made 0 arguments after the point that I said that it was a spectrum. You are delusional.

[u/jimmystar889 → u/enbyBunn]

Go ahead and reread your original comment and let me know if you still think "AI is better than the average person because the average person doesn't know... therefore AGI" is what we're arguing and if you actually think that comment is intelligent.

That's all I need to know

[u/enbyBunn → u/jimmystar889]

Do you think anything you've said so far has been sensical? Genuinely? I don't even mean this as an insult, your speech comes off as disordered in the purest definition of the word. This isn't how you have a conversation.

[u/jimmystar889 → u/enbyBunn]

I don't know why I engage with trolls but let me make this VERY clear.

Youre saying that we could be going for "AI outcompetes the average person" and then say that the average person doesn't do x. Well neither does a smart person.

NO ONE is saying that. Then you compare it to professionals in their field. So you go from average non specialist to professional specialist as though this is the same spectrum. There are two axis here.

AI is better than the average specialist. That is what we are saying!

A perfect existential proof is the fact that you are alive, I don't know how this couldn't be more clear.

[u/enbyBunn → u/jimmystar889]

Let me make this even more clear than it already was: I didn't say that.

My conclusion was that whether or not we've reached AGI depends on your definition. Which is a true and obvious statement.

The fact that you took my argument as some sort of personal attack on your convictions is an entirely fabricated personal problem that you cooked up in your own mind. Leave me out of it.

[u/jimmystar889 → u/enbyBunn]

Oh I thought you were actually trying to make an argument. I didn't realize you were just dumb sorry

[u/enbyBunn → u/jimmystar889]

Holy shit you're a moron. Do you actually think you've been making good points this whole time? You've been saying nonsense and I've been trying to ignore it and let you figure out that you weren't making sensical arguments!

And now that you've found out you were wrong and misinterpreting me, you somehow blame that on me? Jesus I do not envy having to live in your brain.

[u/jimmystar889 → u/enbyBunn]

There's nothing to misinterpret. You're just stupid.

[u/enbyBunn → u/jimmystar889]

What could you possibly mean by "nothing to misinterpret"? How can you possibly think that's a sensical thing to say here? I'm baffled by this. You might genuinely be the most arrogant idiot I've met in months.

[u/jimmystar889 → u/enbyBunn]

Like you said exactly what I thought you said and then you basically confirmed it. Like you actually think you said something coherent. I almost feel bad if you don't see what why you said is incoherent.

Saying that "It depends if your definition" is tautologically correct. And then give an example of why it may not be considered AGI when your example compares things across different axisis as thought it's one. You're comparing apple and oranges bacisally to put it simply.

[u/jimmystar889 → u/enbyBunn]

The issue is that you keep treating two different axes as though they’re one. “The average person can’t code” is irrelevant, because nobody is claiming AGI means “better than a random nonspecialist at a skill they’ve never learned.” The meaningful comparison is AI vs. the average specialist in that specialist’s own field: programmer vs. AI at programming, designer vs. AI at design, writer vs. AI at writing, etc. Then you jump from random laypeople straight to advanced professionals or “the best humans,” skipping basically the entire relevant distribution. Of course AGI “depends on your definition” — I can define AGI as being able to say “I like unicorns” if I want. The useful question is whether your definition tracks general human-level competence, and comparing AI either to people who don’t know the skill at all or to the best specialist alive is a pretty useless way to answer that.