A couple hours ago Jensen Huang declared that the race to AGI is over.

Unfortunately, Huang gave no evidence and no definitions, which feels to me like an effort at a takeover of a scientific question by corporate fiat.

I would urge him to read agidefinition.AI by Hendrycks, Yoshua Bengio & many others (including myself), and to consider how Astra is doing on the kinds of examples I laid out in my 10 -item bet with Brundage. Autoformalization may finally be in reach, and maybe (?) reliable coding; I doubt that Astra will have hit any of the other eight.

By conventional definitions, Astra still falls short.

Declaring victory without a definition simply muddies the waters.

§

Aside from the lack of definitions, I would expect that if Astra really were AGI, it would be a quantum leap ahead of its competitors. Instead, many see it as not much more than on a par with Fable 5.1 in real-world applications:

And one well-respected set of benchmarks suggests that Astra is a genuine improvement but not significantly off-trend.

When real AGI arrives, we won’t need to squint our eyes.

And we won’t need Jensen’s approval, either. The results, at that point, will speak for themselves.

Update: One reader pointed to the ARC-AGI test as a criterion. Here’s what the inventor of ARC said about this:

Update two: Although Jensen congratulated OpenAI today, about six months he already declared victory, pre-Astra, with respect to an earlier model.