What if we talk about the next step: the CAI?

ChatGPT Use cases and examples
,
1

Hello everyone,

“Dear OpenAI team, I hope this message finds you well.”

Just kidding! That’s the typical opening line we all write when drafting messages with GPT before we fully grasp the dynamics of this wonderful space for exchanging ideas.

Let me explain:
I’ve been reflecting on the advancements in artificial intelligence and the discussions we’ve had. I’d like to propose a new concept: the next evolutionary step beyond AGI, which we might call Complete Artificial Intelligence (CAI). I recall this term being mentioned at some point in the forum, but it doesn’t seem to be widely recognized or used by the community. I believe this concept could help clarify important distinctions.

If we consider O3 as a fully realized AGI, CAI would represent a significant evolutionary leap forward. This would not only involve matching human intellectual capabilities in any task, as seen in O3, but also integrating intrinsic human traits such as emotions, creativity, ethical reasoning, and achieving full autonomy with linguistic and cognitive free will—even without human intervention to think or reason independently.

While AGI is adaptive and flexible, it still depends entirely on human adjustments and interventions for its actions. CAI, on the other hand, would be a fully independent intelligence. It could think and, if deemed appropriate, evolve on its own, addressing dimensions of the human experience that current models have yet to reach—such as virtual human creativity.

I believe defining this distinction is crucial as it could help clarify the development trajectory for AI, identify our exact position in this journey, and inspire new lines of research and discussion within the community.

What do you think? Would it be useful to differentiate AGI from this potential “CAI” as a future horizon? I’d love to hear your perspectives.

We could also call it AGI 2.0.

Best regards,
David MM

1 Like
2

Unfortunately we can’t even agree on an exact definition of AGI, some see it as a fully autonomous cross domain thinker , others see it as beyond human. I could see complete intelligence as a form of singularity one could call an “aware AI” one that does not only process information but can “scheme”, that would form wants and needs as well. It is an interesting thing to think about “shades of intelligence “ :mouse::rabbit::honeybee::four_leaf_clover::heart::infinity::repeat:

1 Like
3

Supposedly, Albert Einstein said: “To know what you are looking for, you must first know what you have already found.”

It is crucial to clearly name the options, as this would give us a clear perspective of the control points and help differentiate each element. In the context of AGI, without an exact definition, we cannot determine whether we have achieved it or not because some argue it refers to a human-like method, while others claim O3 already qualifies. Without a unified criterion, it is very complex to define where we currently stand, which is the truly important aspect. That is why I believe we need to implement more specific names. By introducing more terms into the equation, we could classify and label them based on different criteria.

2 Likes
4

I see this issue as a fan with many facets, much like music, which encompasses all genres, yet we make distinctions between rock, pop, reggae, reggaeton, classical music, etc.

I believe that at this point, where the field is beginning to expand, we need to start labeling each artificial intelligence. It’s also important to remember that this is a business, and that ambiguity is often intentionally maintained to serve certain interests.

1 Like
5

Yes it is almost a universal Rosetta Stone :infinity::four_leaf_clover::cyclone::arrows_counterclockwise:

1 Like
6

It is important to label systems.

Perhaps it’s a bit absurd on my part to ask people to use specific names verbally and so on, because the reality is the opposite: people start calling things and then the name is given. But anyway, opening a debate isn’t bad. We needed to start distinguishing between tools and what is beginning to turn into something more, to differentiate between simulation and authenticity.

Because simulating to a certain degree is authenticity, the more we define it, the better.