"Are we in an AGI bubble?" is an ill-posed question. The vast majority of companies riding the current wave of buzzwords are selling "GenAI" (generative) and proposing that <i>general</i> intelligences are on the horizon, be it near or far. GenAI is a bubble, AGI is vaporware.
Who gets to decide / define what 'AGI' even is? I doubt not even OpenAI, Anthropic or DeepMind can even define it or give an accurate date of when 'AGI' has been achieved and have given conflicting dates.<p>Due to this, 'AGI' can mean anything and it is currently (ab)used as a vehicle to raise billons of dollars from VCs to 'achieve' it despite it losing billions a quarter.<p>With reports of diminishing returns in training new models and spending hundreds of millions to do so, the AGI bubble is already presenting itself to being a massive scam.
I’ve created an interactive site showcasing the results of an online survey about AI. My hope is that this site could serve as a snapshot of public sentiment about AI, a sort of historical artifact for our time.<p>So far, only 15 random people have responded, but I thought it might be interesting to hear perspectives from the HN community as well! If you have a moment, I’d love for you to check it out and share your thoughts.<p>I’m also open to suggestions on how to improve the site or what else I could add to make it more engaging or insightful.
Is there even an accepted AGI promise for it to be deemed a bubble? The premise in this question seems to be inconsistent with what we have now, afaict.