By any evaluation you can carry out, GPT is generally intelligent. There is absolutely nothing narrow about GPT-4. And you see the sentiment in recent research. Look at what they're being called even with the skirting around the AGI word.

General Purpose Technologies (From the Jobs Paper), General Artificial Intelligence ( from the creativity paper). Look at the second bit, they just switched the words lol.

The fact that the people who made the damn thing tell otherwise is a good indicator to me, they surely know better than you and me, Sam Altman himself said it's no AGI

Even Microsoft stays very prudent and only talks about "sparks of agi" with "many limitations"

> GPT is generally intelligent.

Besides the fact that it has literally no idea of the meaning of what it writes ?

That's hard to prove one way or the other. Watch Ilyas' latest talk where he talks about how next token prediction is a much more fundamental problem than people give it credit for. Empirically you can easily see that gpt-4 has a world model and that it does abstract logical reasoning.

Maybe it's a vastly different intelligence than our own but the fact remains that it can perform well on an extremely broad range of multidisciplinary tasks. You can argue the epistemology of this all day. But as a pragmatic programmer, gpt-4 does certainly seem to fall into the "AGI" category.

> gpt-4 does certainly seem to fall into the "AGI" category.

Why does openai themselves and basically any expert in the fields says otherwise then ?

The only people who say so are not in the field and most of them aren't even in tech. Being tricked by the machine on a subset of tasks isn't a proof of agi, it's much much broader than that

Seems to be doing doing a better job than you giving your reading comprehension.

If you have anything to say other than "it's not real understanding!...just because", I'd be happy to hear it.

Feel free to enlighten me! I'd be happy to hear how an llm understand things it's not made to understand

I've been reading all I can find online about llms and no one besides reddit tech bros defend that they have "understanding" or know anything about "meaning", quite the contrary actually

Anyone who use these tools knows it for a fact, it's very easy to make them fail in a way that absolutely proves without any shadow of a doubt that they don't have these capabilities

Here is a good article with experts opinions and sources: https://jeremyhadfield.com/why-llms-will-not-understand-lang...

It's just one, you'll find dozens, all going in the same direction

Nice knee jerk reaction btw