>Just out of curiosity, what year do you believe humanity will achieve AGI?

It won't. Technology is peaking. In the coming decades sociopolitical and environmental stressors will cause technology to enter an inevitable decline and we will enter an era of degrowth and survival.

It is already happening. Software is in decline as we speak. Developers are less productive than ever. Software in general is more broken and error-prone than ever. Understanding of technological fundamentals is lower than ever. An influx of new, green engineers who never bothered to learn how any of this shit works has displaced the old retired graybeards who built it all. Web companies are failing left and right, their castles built on mountains of sand crumbling beneath them as they run out hands to pile the grains back up.

My counter argument to your pie in the sky notions of infinite growth is that GPT and LLMs in general are in a period of logistic growth. They were advancing slowly, then all at once, and soon will reach a limit.

>What do you imagine something like a "GPT-5" will be capable of?

I imagine it will be capable of predictive modeling of language, just like GPT-4, and just like GPT-3; that it will be better at it, that it will continue to confuse people who don't know what they're talking about into believing it is somehow alive or conscious, and that it will continue to just be a statistical model running on silicon in a cooled warehouse.

I imagine that it will be just good enough to convince business leaders to replace all their workers with it, and that it will be ever so slightly shittier than a normal human because it lacks any sort of foresight or higher level reasoning, and as a result the world will be just a little bit shittier for everyone.

>Why don't you ask it a question your ownself?

I use it every single day through CoPilot. In fact, I wager I've used it exponentially more than you have. It's an impressive tool, there's no doubt.

But it is just a tool. It is not an AGI. It's a model. You're seeing Jesus in your toast.

So it's summarizing Wikipedia.

This is a language model. It predicts the next best word given a string of preceding tokens based on a corpus of training data, of which includes a vast domain of information on string theory.

I will not truly be convinced that GPT can "understand concepts" until it can create new knowledge. I have yet to see any evidence of that.

Pretty sure OP is high on their own supply.

>Then I typed, because I was not going to take a chance that I could not understand a HS grad equivalent explanation, "Explain this abstract in a manner that would be appropriate to a 6th grader". And in a split second it did. And then I fully understood what the abstract meant.

Prove it. Post what it said to you. Let us see that it truly understood and not that you are simply seeing what you want to see.

Here, let me correct the title for you:

>Microsoft suggests they want more money so make up wild claims about the technology they have a majority stake in to drive up marketing and hype.

Given that you seem to be not using it that much, you'd be better served not using it at all. Ventless fireplaces are extraordinarily dangerous and banned (for good reason) all over the world.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20590920/

Within an hour of turning on a ventless fireplace, whole-home levels of toxic and dangerous combustion products exceed WHO safety levels. They literally fill your home with poison.