I believe so. AIs are shockingly good at a lot of domains, but there's still a lot of pretty basic stuff they don't really "understand" at a conceptual level and (currently) they can't learn to get better at them.
(obviously it might take years for me to get good enough at something, or if you set the "arbitrary" task as something ridiculous, but lets work in good faith here and think of something the average human could do after learning about it)
If we progress to the point where an LLM instance can meaningfully learn to get better at something overtime without retraining, then I will accept that is basically AGI. Right now, they still seem to be pretty boxed into their training, even if you can prompt them to act differently.
Compared to 2016, it can do a lot of things, but it still fails for example with recommending a setup for my Raspberry Pi to have a 4G connection with some parameters (I want to use as a gateway between VoLTE calls and SMS, and my SIP server somewhere else). It failed miserably. I bought stuff according to its recommendation which was more or less a waste of money, twice. With miniscule knowledge compared to theirs, or even hobbyists', I could figure out all the details at the end, and order something which really works, but only after I sit down for 4 hours, and dig through exactly what I needed, because LLM lied flat out what Sixfab 3G/4G HAT can do. (Of course, not just LLMs lie, SixFab lied about something else too)
Of course, it's a moving goal post, because we have no clue what general intelligence is exactly. But it's definitely not general yet. Now the goalpost is to achieve that kind of level of thinking which I did in that 4 hours. When it reaches it, we will find something else it clearly lacks. Until we can't. Then, and only then we reached AGI. Until you see comments, reviews, etc about things which it cannot do, until then it's not general.
I think we need to keep in mind that medical and pharmacy mistakes are still extremely common
Recently my partner received a prescription with instructions that were over the LD50 (we caught it as it was obviously too high). We reported it but it was likely the case of the clerk simply hitting the wrong button and not double checking the resulting sticker
I’d be interested to see the AI transcription failure rate compared with existing medical/pharmacy rates
The pharmacist should have caught this. This is the reason doctors don't give drugs themselves and pharmacy is a completely separate, trained profession. Multiple things have to go wrong for you to get the wrong drugs. If that happened then something is very wrong with your pharmacy.
EHRs and other electronic prescription applications pretty much all have automated alerts for inappropriate dosages (like mg versus mcg) as well as allergies and harmful drug-drug interactions. The prescribing clinician likely had to dismiss at least one alert in making that error.
The vast majority of the world is nothing like this
From Scotland to Tasmania, most courses congregate around already wet and mostly sand/loamy soil (largely unusable for other purposes without major construction)
I agree with you for artificial American places like TPC Scottsdale or Wolf Creek GC etc
I’m an avid golfer and I live in Scotland. I’m not going to pretend that they’re bastions of sustainability - it’s not rained here in 2 full weeks and my course is watering their greens and fairways. We’re not quite at drought but the UK has a hosepipe ban in place and yet courses are continuing to water and maintain.
On the suitability of the soil, for some courses yeah. For the vast majority - there’s 4 courses within 20 minutes of me in an urban area and they would be developed into property in a heartbeat if they sold. My home course has an apartment block cutting through it.
I don’t think any of that matters though - it’s not like it would be a public park if it wasn’t a golf course. It’s certainly no less resource intensive than the massive concrete jungle of a sports centre with a running track across from me, or a football stadium or any of the numbers of empty buildings in the city centre. It’s an amenity, just like any other, it has a cost and we have to accept that otherwise we might as well just tear it all down.
There are even some philosophers/mathematicians who attest to finitism (they’re not mainstream, though), but if correct would undermine our idea of fields and continuous structures more broadly
reply