At least until General Artificial Creativity (GAC) takes over. But don't worry, it won't kill humans for a greater good of more paperclips, but because it will be.. creative.
Technically you're not wrong, but without globalization, deindustrialization wouldn't have happened and unions (and strike threats) would probably be strong enough to prevent the poor to rich redistribution.
So even if globalization made America richer on average, it also destroyed the fair redistribution mechanism.
Me too, which confirms the theory from Inside Jokes that what humans find funny are the flaws of logical thinking (and hallucinations mostly being hasty generalizations).
There is a difference between neoconservatives and neoliberals. You probably meant the latter, but Republican party was never neoliberal only, it also is, as you write, neoconservative.
It's not really surprising as conservativism and liberalism are both main pillars of capitalism, because the idea of property is based both on authority (like authority, you get the property ostensibly based on your past performance and you keep it indefinitely) and liberty (you can do what you want with it).
I think we can make an analogy with our own brains, which have evolutionary older parts (limbic system) and evolutionary younger parts (neocortex). Now AI, I think it will be our new neocortex, another layer to our brain. And you can see limbic system didn't "outsource" thinking to neocortex - it's still doing it; but it can take (mostly good) advice from it.
Applying this analogy to human relationships - neocortex allowed us to be more social. Social communication with limbic system was mostly "you smell like a member of our species and I want to have sex with you". So having neocortex expanded our social skills to having friends etc.
I think AI will have a similar effect. It will allow us to individually communicate with large amount of other people (millions). But it will be a different relationship than what we today call "personal communication", face to face, driven by our neocortex. It will be as incomprehensible for our neocortex as our language is incomprehensible for the limbic system.
How do you know? What if AGI can be implemented as a reasonably small set of logic rules, which implement what we call "epistemology" and "informal reasoning"? And this set of rules is just being run in a loop, producing better and better models of reality. It might even include RL, for what we know.
And what if LLMs already know all these rules? So they are AGI-complete without us knowing.
To borrow from Dennett, we understand LLMs from the physical stance (they are neural networks) and the design stance (they predict next token of language), but do we understand them from an intentional stance, i.e. what rules they employ when they running chain-of-thought for example?
It's very simple. The model itself doesn't know and can't verify it.
It knows that it doesn't know.
Do you deny that?
Or do you think that a general intelligence would be in the habit of lying to people and concealing why? At the end of the day, that would be not only unintelligent, but hostile. So it's very simple. And there is such a thing as "the truth", and it can be verified by anyone repeatably in the requisite (fair, accurate) circumstances, and it's not based in word games.
All I asked for was the OP to substantiate their claim that LLMs are not AGI. I am agnostic on that - either way seems plausible.
I don't think there even is an agreed criterion of what AGI is. Current models can easily pass the Turing test (except some gotchas, but these don't really test intelligence).
What people hope 'AGI' is would at least be able to make confirmations of fact and know what verification means. LLMs don't have 'knowledge' and do not actually 'reason'. Heuristic vs simulation. One can be made to approach the other, but only on a specific and narrow path.
Someone who knows something can verify that they know it. An "intelligence" implies it is doing operations based on rules, but LLMs cannot conform themselves to rules that require them to reason everything through. What people have hoped AGI would be could be trained to reliably adopt the practice of reasoning. Necessary but maybe not sufficient, and I'm just gonna blame that on the term "intelligence" actually indicating a still relatively low level of what I will "consciousness".
I don't really follow what you're saying, so I'll keep it short. I have used Claude Opus 4.5 for coding and it certainly has knowledge and can reason.
You're wrong on reliability. Humans are also quite unreliable, and formal reasoning systems in silico can actually fail too (due to e.g. cosmic rays), the probability is just astronomically low.
And in engineering, we know quite well how to take a system that is less than 50% unreliable and turn it into something with any degree of reliability - we just run it over and over and verify it gives identical results.
And Claude Code (as an LLM harness) can do this. It can write tests. It can check if program is running correctly (giving expected result). It can be made to any degree of reliability you desire. We've crossed that 50% threshold.
The same happens when models are learning. They start with heuristics, but eventually they'll learn and generalize enough to learn whatever formal rules of logic and reasoning, and to apply them with high degree of reliability. Again, we've probably crossed that threshold, which is confirmed by experience of many users that models are getting more and more reliable with each iteration.
Does it make me uneasy that I don't know what the underlying learned formal reasoning system is? Yes. But that doesn't mean it's not AGI.
None of the above are even remotely epistemologically sound.
"Or do you think that a general intelligence would be in the habit of lying to people and concealing why?"
First, why couldn't it? "At the end of the day, that would be not only unintelligent, but hostile" is hardly an argument against it. We ourselves are AGI, but we do both unintelligent and hostile actions all the time. And who said it's unintelligent to begin with? As in AGI it might very well be in my intelligent self-interests to lie about it.
Second, why is "knows it and can verify" a necessary condition? An AGI could very well not know it's one.
>And there is such a thing as "the truth", and it can be verified by anyone repeatably in the requisite (fair, accurate) circumstances, and it's not based in word games.
Epistemologically speaking, this is hardly the slam-dunk argument you think it is.
no, you missed some of my sentences. you have to take the whole picture together.
and I was not making an argument to you to prove the existence of the truth. You are clearly bent on arguing against its existence, which tells me enough about you.
We were talking about agents that operate in good faith that know that they are safe.
When you're ready to have a discussion in good faith rather than attempting to find counterarguments, then you will find that what I said is verifiable. The question is not whether you think you can come up with a way to make an argument that sounds like it contradicts what I said.
The question is not whether an AGI knows that it is an AGI. The question is whether it knows that it is not one.
And you're missing the fact that there's no such thing as it here.
If you go around acting hostile to good people that's still not very intelligent.
In fact, I would question if you have any concept of why you're doing it at all.
chances are you're doing it to run from yourself not because you know what you're doing.
Anyway, you're just speculating and the fact of the matter is that you don't have to speculate.
If you actually wanted to verify what I said, it would be very easy to do so.
it's not a surprise that someone who doesn't want to know something will have deaf ears.
so I'm not going to pretend that I stand a chance of convincing you when I already know that my argument is accurate.
don't be so sure that you meet the criteria for AGI.
and as for my slam dunk, any attempt to argue against the existence of truth, automatically validates your assumption of its existence. so don't make the mistake of assuming I had to argue about it. I was merely stating a fact.
>no, you missed some of my sentences. you have to take the whole picture together. and I was not making an argument to you to prove the existence of the truth. You are clearly bent on arguing against its existence, which tells me enough about you. We were talking about agents that operate in good faith that know that they are safe. When you're ready to have a discussion in good faith rather than attempting to find counterarguments, then you will find that what I said is verifiable. The question is not whether you think you can come up with a way to make an argument that sounds like it contradicts what I said. (...) don't be so sure that you meet the criteria for AGI
Sorry, I'm not interested in replying to ad-hominem jabs and insults, when I made perfectly clear (if basic) and non-personal arguments.
In any case, your comments ignore about all of epistemology and just take for granted whatever naive folk epistemology you have arrived at, and you're not interested in counter-arguments anyway, so, have a nice life.
Is it even an attainable goal? It seems an NN with less than say 4 billion parameters will be able to do that. The cost of training will likely go down with more models being available. Unless we lock down the computing for majority of people, I don't see how we can prevent someone creating a CSAM model in their garage.
I don't want to see CSAM created, but the totalitarian control required is too much for my taste (and frankly it's preferable for that person to use NN than to go out and hurt actual children).
Not to mention even locked down technology is often being abused by the privileged.
People can draw naked children with a stick and some dirt. I’m not sure that preventing the creation of fictional csam is the best use of our resources if we want to protect minors from abuse.
The best use? Probably not. But if I built a website that let people generate extremely convincing unlimited photos of you wearing an SS uniform and forcing your dog to smoke meth and sent them to everyone you’ve ever met, this might seem like a less worthy hill to die on. Or is that just a sticks and dirt thing too?
Everybody I care about would know that those pictures are not real so I think that the harm to me would likely be lower than the harm to society if building websites were impossible.
The people who are sending the pictures are criminally liable, regardless where they got them.The fact that somebody built a website for it is irrelevant, the act of sending them unsolicited is the immoral act here. (And frankly it's probably gonna be laughed off or end up as spam unless somebody you associate with is an idiot.)
The goal is not to prevent someone from making their own model do what they want, but to prevent your model from doing what you don't want, like generate CSAM or non-consentual sexually explicit photos.
I don't understand how its controversial that someone/some-company might not want their products to be known for that.
It's a bit odd requirement, but.. OK. I mean who is the malicious actor here, the AI, the human user or the AI provider?
If the AI, then we shouldn't give it an agency (user should always vet the output).
If it's the user, the AI is irrelevant to the question. And if it's AI provider, why would they train AI on such materials in the first place.
The whole enterprise of this kind of safety doesn't make much sense to me. If the AI is not able to follow so clear user instructions it's not ready for prime time and must be under human supervision at all times. (And subtle hallucinations on topic seem to be both more dangerous and more of a problem than blatant random production of explicit images, anyway.)
I believe this[0] article shows the other side of that door. To clarify, I believe the seeming lack of justice system involvement is what chafes for most.
reply