Thread

1. atemerev · 1789909754 · focus · HN ↗

   All of this is accurate (and useful). But yeah, psychics do not prove theorems from frontier math and build working complex software.

   1. cmiles74 · 1789912129 · focus · HN ↗

      In my opinion, this article is talking about people who get into long conversations and become convinced the model is “intelligent”, maybe even “AGI”. This seems to be a trap people are falling into, even in 2026.

      1. atemerev · 1789912376 · focus · HN ↗

         Initial definitions of AGI (as of 2014) are long surpassed. Then, AGI was defined as something that is general enough to work in many fields and orient themselves. It did not include being smarter than humans or even having comparable intelligence to humans. By original standards, we have AGI already for some time.

         Current AGI definitions are intentionally vague.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.