I thought for ages "a machine that can do anything a human can do" was the definition. So I didn't pay any attention to the idea, seems self-evident humans don't know the limits of what a human can do, figured the whole thing was promotional and overblown by the same people who think The Facebook Algorithm Is Magic.

That said I'd like to hear a concise more rigorous definition. There may be something to the idea "It's a Godzilla Clippy that talks and will destroy humanity by taking all our resources" but still I'm missing a lot by just going with this impression.

ETA I also didn't know until last week that ChatGPT doesn't learn from its interactions. It just lives in 2022 forever.

ETA2: general public, even if limited to reasonably smart engaged people, poorly served by having huge gulf between "it's a Godzilla Clippy" and "Only a few superior beings can possibly understand it."

I think most people aren't considering just slightly better chatgpt. Though there is range in what is considered, I think that human level but faster is the typical point.

Though sometimes people are considering within a context of far future or whatever, but usually(?) that's obvious.

So while there are differences in definition of how exactly you define human level (such as whether to include operating a robot efficiently) I think they're less different than people make them out to be.

@Aleph Might help if we ditched the term "human level" completely. It's shedding more heat than light.

Yeah when it comes to resolve those question there will be a lot of arguments involved. By the tone of some questions people mean “better GPT”, but I always understood it as a conscious artificial intelligent system