It is nonsense to respond to the OP the way you did unless your purpose is to derail objective metrics of AGI. I can think of lots of reasons to do that, not the least of which is you don't want AGI to happen.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 1:34 PM Quan Tesla <[email protected]> wrote: > Would you like a sensible response? What's your position on the > probability of AGI without the fine structure constant? > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024, 18:00 James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This guy's non sequitur response to my position is so inept as to exclude >> the possibility that it is a LLM. >> > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T5c24d9444d9d9cda-Md86a1a649fab945679571cd5> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T5c24d9444d9d9cda-M2c027c8ae3dbb0bd565e11ee Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
