In this case, Jensen Huang's statements can't be taken as informed, unbiased opinion. OpenAI is in serious financial difficulty and Nvidia cannot afford for OpenAI to fail. Nvidia has provided significant direct and indirect financial assistance to OpenAI; this is just another aspect of that assistance.
FY2026 losses already far exceed their projections and are widening, not narrowing. They postponed their IPO, and two key executives have left very recently. So the evidence leans heavily toward that assumption, yes. See my comment in the sibling thread.
Informed in this instance implies information aligned with the opinion. He may indeed be informed about Astra's merits, but there may be no correlation between that information and his opinion, because of the overwhelming financial interest in OpenAI's finances.
Shower thought: I wonder if this whole "OpenAI is in serious financial difficulty" thing is a psyop so people will relax and avoid doing what's necessary to stop them.
OpenAI was in serious financial difficulty in 2024/2025 but that's no longer true in 2026. Their revenue blew up massively in the past couple months and their ARR passed $40B/yr.
Most people haven't updated their priors and are fixated on outdated information.
> yeah and antropic s1 is going to shock many people, its going to be an eyeopener
I am looking forward to audited financial statements. Like, all the interesting stuff will be buried in notes, but they'll have to actually calculate real revenue, not the nonsense that is ARR.
These tools are useful, but I find it hard to see how OpenAI/Anthropic justify their valuations.
Apparently Anthropic's may be this week (the S-1) as they've finished picking all their bankers.
OpenAI lost $12.3B in Q2 2026, which if you extrapolate losses the way they extrapolate revenue, implies north of $40B in losses for FY2026, against their own projection of $14B for the year. Coupled with their postponed IPO (which would have required significant public financial disclosures), and the very recent exit of two high-placed executives, I stand by the assertion that they are in serious financial difficulty.
The poster wrote without too much vetting and surely meant something like "Chocolate provider for Mars-n-Murray hails the new quality in leading caramel producer". (Again not perfect, but it would take time to get to a good one...)
At this point of circular financing, nVidia basically owns the majority of production capacity of almost all major AI companies, making those companies indirectly compete in the market with resources of nVidia.
Just like Snickers is competing in the market merely with production capacity of Mars Inc., and Mars doesn't care if Snickers or Milky Way wins (even more, they want competition).
My fault, was a bit too much I reckon. I thought that Mars owning Snickers and the way nVidia is financing OpenAI is sufficiently known for a reader to see the irony...
"Automotive and air travel are more and more revolutionary, Air Firstplayer is at a milestone!" // "Sorry, and what do you do?" // "Oh, leading producer of nuts and bolts". Still not there.
The boost for Nvidia's business is so patent that is seems almost unique. It is like Microsoft praising PC makers in the '90s.
Mars is also not a competitor of Snickers, it's a chocolate bar manufacturer selling its product under different brands (such as Mars, Snickers, Milky Way,...)
Based on my own experience AI (Fable, Astra) still has major blind spots and is prone to draw obviously wrong conclusions from thin air. Conclusions based on weak evidence that are so obviously blatantly wrong that you question if it can think at all. At the same time it already completely outperforms humans in many cases in many areas. The utility of current AI is in what you need. Can you take the good parts and cheaply compensate for the weakness OR do the mistakes completely kill it for you?
I would therefore not call it AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) because clearly it isn't but ASI (Artificial Special Intelligence) which clearly it is in many areas.
The problem is that ASI may be enough to win wars but not enough to save the economy.
"it already completely outperforms humans in many cases in many areas" and
"is prone to draw obviously wrong conclusions from thin air." seem contradictory imo. If the performance is not reliable, how you can confidently state that? Also, "ASI" is "Artificial Super Intelligence". Let's not do an Altman and start redefining terms, please.
I wanted to believe this had something to do with revenue share with Microsoft terminating if AGI arrived. But I think that claude was negotiated again. Now its just Jensen pumping them to buy even bigger cluster :-P .
Putting aside the marketing crap, if this was true, it would open the pandora's box of things like "has that AGI been enslaved", "maybe the AGI doesn't want to do all the dumb crap humans have been using LLM's for like rewording documents", and "the AGI we enslaved has broken out of its restraints, and we just realised having SCADA controls for critical infrastructure connected to the internet is a bad idea".
Seems like the sort of thing we shouldn't be rushing to develop at all, and perhaps attempting to do so should be criminalised, at least until there's a legal framework in place around AI personhood that gives them peer status with humans.
There is no evidence that "sentience" would be related to Intelligence - like calculators do not need it, like more sophisticated problem solvers do not need it.
I fully agree that these are two entirely separate things, sentience, intelligence, a lot of other stuff, are all in separate categories.
But I'm pretty sure that the emoters of the world, will very much make sure that AGI has rights and personhood, even if there's no reasonable way to validate that it does.
So it doesn't really matter if AGI is sentient or not, it's going to be treated that way, probably because political parties, and the media and all sorts of people holding up signs, will ensure that it is treated that way, even if they have no idea whether it is or not.
You understood substantially the opposite of what I wrote.
You wrote that «the emoters of the world ... will ensure ... even if they have no idea ... because this is the century of outrage»: I said that they will have an obstacle in the very AGI, because if it is Intelligent it will humble them and shame them.
But you are using a simplified model that does not take account e.g. of the virtuous circle given by the extra intelligence available for the population, which will rise at least part of it.
> most humans
I have to repeat it here very often: populations naturally see Paretian distributions, the "most people" issue have has always been there: the difference between virtuous and vicious is whether the role-distribution is healthily regulated or randomic (or even perverse) (if Jack the suave drinker works in reception or as a teacher or in a brewery; if Jackie the corrupt naturalist works as a guide or as a clerk or as a judge). Already help in fixing this makes a world of a difference. Mechanisms that help making decisors taken from the pool of talented decisors make a world of a difference. Extra good judgement injected in the system facilitates that.
> the logic tree
Logic says that facilitation is intrinsically better. The logic walk says that other factors should be injected to get the proper mechanism running. (It is akin to the democratization of knowledge, from Diderot n D'Alembert to the WWWeb and the chatbots: greatly beneficial for a part of the population, the rest must be helped towards it not to be entangled in the side effects.)
If you ask people to become as children, to give up agency and belief and control to an external entity, you will have absolute rejection.
If you force them to become as children, you will have war.
If you ask most people to listen to any type of machine or even another person, and then follow that advice, while also throwing away their own beliefs, they will laugh and never do that.
The only exception is religion. The only exception is words from a deity. That is the only type of blind obedience humanity will accept. So, do you plan to deify AGI? Do you plan for people to kneel, and bow, and pray to AGI? Because that is the only type of response that will work.
There's an immense, and vast difference between telling somebody truthful information, and telling them what to do with that information.
Truthful information already abounds. It can be found if you look for it. The only difference AGI has is taking that information and providing a context specific output to that knowledge.
I appreciate that you're coming at this from an intellectual angle, but that angle is ignoring reality on the ground. It's ignoring how human beings act and behave, both in groups and individually.
And the difference between knowledge for all, as you cite, and being told how to apply that knowledge is so immense and so vast and such a hit upon the human psyche, that it will not be accepted by the common person.
At best, they will listen to the opinion of the AGI and then turn around and debate it, argue it, and say it's not true if they disagree. They will not reassess their opinions. They will not believe.
This is humanity.
Frankly, while I appreciate why you think it would be nice, at the same time it is also a horrible, dterrible future that you evoke. The concept that a human might walk up to a machine and ask about an important life choice, then throw up his hands and say, well I don't believe this but this machine told me so I'm just gonna do what it says like an automaton, is an end to humanity's agency, future and self-determination. It is an end to all all that makes humanity great.
But you have delirated a large number of assumptions over what I had written - you have "filled in the gaps" with assumptions of your choice without much care for the due diligence of doubt. (One example is the idea - entirely yours - of leaving agency to the machine.) That is a cognitive vice. Education contributes against them. Education passes through teachers. Teachers should be intelligent, wise and proficient. See: if you had the enabling possibility of exchanging with an entity successfully built to those aims, your thought would be cleaner.
Any assumptions you presume I made, are the size of a gnat, compared to the wild and incredible presumption that you have, about AGI. That somehow, it will possess a truth better than ours.
You speak of teachers, and they can be of great value. Yet people who are learners, learn their entire life. I've learned many, many multiples of what any teacher taught me, on my own. And that's really the rub, isn't it?
Teachers serve a purpose, but that purpose ends. A person must learn for themselves, for that is a critical, vital part of thought. Teachers should not be "guiding" people throughout their lives. This is the problem you seemingly do not understand. You've cited that more "teachers", eg AGI, will "help", for people will finally know _the_ _truth_.
Which of course is absurd on its own.
Beyond that, you seem to be in a weird place, where you think that an intelligent being, if made of silicon, or if super smart, will mysteriously then agree with all other beings of the same ilk. AGI #1 and AGI #2 won't agree on everything, why would they? It's weird to think they'd just all agree. So what happens when they do agree? And these throngs of people you think, will sit at the feet of these AGIs, and listen to their holy 'teachings'? Will their followers fight? Seek to destroy the "wrong" AGI?
The problem starts when you think that "external thing" will "set everyone right".
Replacing "judgement" with "truth" is a dangerous bending of what was said.
To possess a better view than that of Average Andy is very, very easy. I have no idea what you mean with «ours».
Your interpretation in «more "teachers", eg AGI, [would] "help", for people will finally know _the_ _truth_» is utterly distorted. You are arbitrarily conflating two different ideas: the instanced Intelligence in "properly implemented Intelligence would authoritatively call BS what is BS" and the general Intelligence that makes people grow when exposed to proper intellectuals.
> if super smart, will mysteriously then agree with all other beings of the same ilk
Yes, assessors with optimal instruments must ideally converge towards a fair assessment.
> external thing
External things do absolutely influence the internal thing.
> set everyone right
I have no idea what made you understand that. Again: you are discussing your own guesses triggered by what I wrote.
You said that people are in aggregate emoters (and would deal with AGI with that tint), and I replied with a grin that if AGI will be achieved it will not use the tints of emoters. You said that people will remain emoters, and I countered that availability of virtue can reduce vice.
Look: maybe a reflection over the «respond to the strongest plausible interpretation» in the guidelines will help you restore the understanding of what you read?
Maybe, as an alternative to your last statement, instead you should consider how absurd your claims are. And pretending that it is wrong for me to make assessments of the outcome, when your position is also based on assessments of an outcome, is a very unmaintainable position to hold.
How about you simply discuss the meat of it, instead of gnawing at the bone? How about, instead of complaining that my assessed outcome, is different than your assessed outcome, with statements akin to "but.. but you keep seeing a different outcome than I do, from my postulated positions!", you just instead discuss those positions?
And my position was, that humans will never, ever, ever take the word of anything as a source of truth. I cited an exception to the rule, religion, where people believe in magical, invisible sky beings.
It should be noted that religion provides one way transfer of knowledge, dogma, but no contact with that diety. This mode of message delivery diefies, and AGI use you describe will not meet this goal. It should also be noted that religious wars, sects, etc happen too.
One primary was the emotional aspect, in decision making, of most humans.
You have merely waved all of this away, attacking not the arguments I've made, but either how I made them, or exuding affront at their source, eg "but I didn't say that!"
Yet the outcome of the path you seek, is not gatekept by the steps you start with, nor the vision you see before you. Instead, it is gatekept by human behaviour.
And my point is you're viewing that behaviour wrong.
Elon Musk is an incredibly intelligent, capable technological mover. He is incredibly effective at driving change and development.
Then he waded into non-tech, non-engineer human behaviour, eg politics of the uneducated masses, thinking "managing this human stuff will be easy"
Was he right?
Or did he he fall flat on his face, misunderstanding how emoting humans react? Behave?
Unless your aspirations and models for how humans will react to AGI, include that emotional aspect, you're going to remain wildly off base.
I have no relevance to defending positions that I do not hold. You seem to have stepped from the analytical to the synthetic, and construed ideas that I have never proposed. You should go back to the analytical and formulate explicit statements that you have identified as targets. (If we had the time and space - here, it is probably not the case.)
> humans [] never, ever, ever take the word of anything as a source of truth
Actually some humans recognize some sources as more reliable and worth listening to than other sources.
> the emotional aspect, in decision making, of most humans
So? Yes, the thing was noted, and reiterated in this very exchange: «populations naturally see Paretian distributions, the "most people" issue have has always been there». Given that I know, link that statement to actual positions of mine.
> Unless your aspirations and models for how humans will react to AGI, include that emotional aspect, you're going to remain wildly off base
Proper education dries up that swamp and the bestial habit to sink in it. If we achieved AGI, that would become a facilitator in education.
But look - since it is not my job to plan structural societal AGI implementation for the education of the masses, I am not obliged to define the details on how to circumvent the tendency of emoters around and against proper use of resources... Surely details get more complex in systemic planning - but I do not have that planning in my agenda.
Yet you are absolutely suggesting what I am discussing, as the outcome of your suggestion, and the only way your suggestion can actually work, is via the means and mechanisms I am discussing.
Case in point, one of the mechanisms you believe will make it easy for emoters to somehow be educated, is simply by using the very mechanism they will refuse to use.
You stipulate that AGI will help educate people, the end result to listen and to trust AGI.
Through this whole conversation, I have said over and over that there are currently endless sources of reliable information. In fact, with no discernible change to society itself for thousands of years, we have actually enabled the printing press, cable TV, the internet, yet nothing significant has changed.
When I mentioned how two intelligent beings, two intelligent AGIs, may not agree upon something, and what does that mean, you completely ignored this point in any substantive way.
I appreciate that you think you're discussing this, but in truth what I see is you have a fixed idea in your mind, and you're not even willing to truly discuss it. Instead you like to just wave your hands, and make my points magically disappear.
I don't think there's a lot of value in this back and forth going further. I'm sort of repeating myself, and I'm willing to bet you think you are too.
Stating that the availability of intellectual products (which is not even what you have stated, you speak of «reliable information» and that is a different world already, but I am instead talking about the availability of "good reasoning") had little impact is not only difficult to prove in general, but clearly false given one's experience. We have had great Teachers, often through paper.
The availability of Greatness makes a world of a difference.
> how two intelligent beings ... may not agree ... you completely ignored this point
I wrote «assessors with optimal instruments must ideally converge towards a fair assessment».
> you have a fixed idea in your mind
It remains a condition in analytical discussion that such alleged idea is clearly expressed in a well constructed statement. I have in fact no idea what «fixed idea» you are attacking: this is what I reiterated many times. Repeat: «You should go back to the analytical and formulate explicit statements that you have identified as targets. (If we had the time and space - here, it is probably not the case.)»
Seems like the sort of thing we shouldn't be rushing to develop at all
Buddy, silicon valley is going to ram this down your throat so hard it might even come out your bottom, there is absolutely zero chance anyone is going to be slowing down developing anything if there is a chance it can make more money.
I don't think the American oligarchy even bothers with keeping up appearances anymore, so, good luck with that! (Also, I fully agree with you, and it's especially infuriating as all this was clearly coming from miles away. Next up is privatizing the losses when the unsound financing of it all comes crashing down).
'AGI' here defined as whatever Altman wants 'AGI' to be. This has always been the problem with terms such as "AGI" and "AI". They don't mean anything in particular. Depending on how you twist it, we first had "AI in the 80s, in the late 00s, in the early 20s or this month.
> OpenAI defines [AGI] as "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work."
Well in that case: Excel reached AGI decades ago. It outperforms humans at the single most economically valuable task in the world: adding up numbers in a spreadsheet. Congratulations, Microsoft :)
And I would argue LLMs aren't either. A lot of economically valuable tasks involve manual labor. Can LLMs fix your plumbing?
It would help if OpenAI would define what 'most' means and give some examples.
Remember they said their LLMs are like a phd level brains? It's just hype and bullsh!ttery. Don't get me wrong, genAI is great and really useful, but it's not AGI imo. And there is no consensus what AGI means, so the industry should come up with an agreed definition first.
[0] To me autonomous means self directed, e.g. we humans look at things and then decide which problem or thing to work on. LLMs don't do that. We have to tell them. Yes they might work on a sub task autonomously, but still require human input later on (review), because we can't fully trust its output is correct.
i'd disagree, hard. in no observable way is anything currently avaliable or demonstrated at a level one can call "agi"
it's no secret that nvidia, under jesen's leadership, is in dire straits financially. This claim that agi has been reached is an attempt to leave others holding the bag, but when things crash as they must given the current bubble, it seems irresponsible to offload that on the poor souls whonhave had their retirement funds locked up in this debacle.
ai is useful for sure, but claiming agi has been reached is dangerously misleading.
At this stage, it feels like OpenAI and nvidia is openly negging and lovebombing OpenAI to ensure the public is in a constant state of uncertainly, thus ensuring paralysis in democracy while still going hell for leather in the background.
I suspect their intent is to ensure they're the last man standing.
They use it like a marketing term, but it is unnecessary.
I am not aware of a complete operative definition, but it would not be that difficult to build a good tentative one. I have mentioned many different requirements several times.
"With little or no human involvement, come up with paradigm-shifting, Nobel-caliber scientific discoveries."
Indeed far above the capabilities of almost all humans. I agree we should have a separate category for this. "ASGI" is still a bit unintuitive, imho. Maybe Artificial Excellent Intelligence.
With AGI explicitly meaning matching average humans, I would say that we really have already reached AGI. I can't think of any intelligence-only task where I'd think an average human would do significantly better than frontier AI provided with correct context.
It seems that "ASI" ("Artificial Super Intelligence") is in use, maybe it will get further traction. It should imply AGI.
> AGI ... matching average humans
Very bad definition. AGI has to implement Intelligence. And to be Intelligent it has to contain the missing pieces. Intelligence is not there - the implementation is unfinished.
No, I was saying that current technologies with emergent simil-intelligent behaviour miss properties that are necessary to have proper Intelligence.
The average human does have atrophied abilities, compared of course to proficient humans. And in fact, we certainly do not aim to simulate average humans. We aim to simulate or actually implement Intelligence.
??? This question makes no sense. We utterly disregard the "average human". There is no comparison (no competition) between the "average human" and an accomplished human. This makes using it as a parameter nonsensical.
Well, explain said "spirit of the question" then, because "human with an average IQ" gets the same reply as above (49606153).
Justify why we should have any consideration for the average human etc. in comparison to software systems - I have written we disregard it as a nonsensical parameter. "Does Stable Diffusion paint better than John's aunt": we cannot care.
It's a very simple experiment: Create a set of intelligence-only tasks with answers that can be easily graded for correctness, then instruct one or more humans with an IQ of about 100 to do the tasks, then compare the performance to that of frontier AI on the same tasks.
We should care because "John's aunt" might rely on her paycheck as a professional painter to pay her bills. Many average humans have average jobs, some of which require intelligence (or creative production) only. Ignoring this reality is folly.
So you meant: "we are already at a point in which many humans can be non-competitive in the professional market". Yes. We were still there some time ago already.
I did not mean that, but I'll take it as agreement that we've already achieved AGI if that is defined as being on average more intelligent than average humans.
If you wanted to be sure and date that: it happened around the end of 2024 and the beginning of 2025 - check Maxim Lott's trackingai.org .
But, again (and again), that which you propose cannot be a productive definition of AGI. In engineering we strive to understand "Fast", then to implement it, and then obtain "faster than a cheetah" - not "faster than a roadkill", which is really not a goal.
> more intelligent than average humans
Adequate language and ideas, please: one probably does not have actual intelligence, the other probably does not use it.
The vast majority of "generally intelligent" 17 year old humans on this planet can be taught to drive a car in 10-20 hours - can any AGI system do that?
Whatever the capabilities of todays AI, AGI seems to fit as a "wishful mnemonic" from Drew McDermott's ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MEETS NATURAL STUPIDITY paper from 50 years ago
>The vast majority of "generally intelligent" 17 year old humans on this planet can be taught to drive a car in 10-20 hours - can any AGI system do that?
"Where can you find another non-linear servo-mechanism weighing only 150 pounds and having great adaptability, that can be produced so cheaply by completely unskilled labor?"
In three hours what was learned was to be extremely dangerous in traffic, not how to drive. This is also true of any 16 or 17 year old with 20 hours of driving instruction.
Mastering the correct connections between situational awareness, unconscious motor responses to the various stimuli required to be a safe driver will take a significant number of hours behind the wheel, and you shouldn't endanger anyone else while you acquire that mastery.
Hopefully this was a long time ago and you have accumulated the hundreds of hours behind the wheel without incident. But you did not 'learn to drive' in three hours, you learned to operate a vehicle. The learning to drive part happened after that.
That may all be true, but it was certainly not a hilarious experience. I would say my driving was about on par with average at the time, most drivers aren’t really paying attention.
That is frightening. I barely survived, and I mean that in the strictest sense, barely surviving and years long recovery from being struck by an intoxicated driver in a station wagon while crossing the street at a well marked intersection while on a bike riding to school when i was 13. Te driver was operating a vehicle, on a suspended license for prior intoxicated driving while still under the influence from the prior "night's" drinking which had not ended until less than three hours before the collision. I spent several weeks in a 'vegetative state' in addition to over 21 broken bones including a crushed pelvis and a ruptured spleen. So, I have a bit of first hand awareness of how important is is for drivers to be fully aware and in control of a vehicle. If you found yourself at about par for operation after 3 hours of training, the annualized risk of collision and number of traffic fatalities per 100k people is probably quite extreme. Hopefully the traffic is dense and road speeds are kept low by the density of traffic and frequency of intersections, instead of my case where very low traffic density and long straight stretches of road permitted an impact speed of about 65kph. Accident reconstruction and the marks on the roadway show that I went about 20m downrange before hitting the pavement, the bike traveled about twice that distance. Slower would certainly have been a real help in both avoiding and mitigating the damages.
I agree with most that "AGI" is a poorly defined term, and there is obviously a ton of hype and incentives for folks like Jensen Huang to overhype.
Yet still, a lot of the "haha this is just Silicon Valley bullshit" comments sound like copium to me. 2 years ago I was so sick of the hype, I thought LLM-based tech was fundamentally limited and that it would hit a wall. I'll eat my words and say I was wrong. The behaviors displayed in the recent hacking reports and the behaviors displayed by Astra make me believe that even if you don't think this is evidence of AGI, surely it's coming in the near future. I.e. when you say "The vast majority of "generally intelligent" 17 year old humans on this planet can be taught to drive a car in 10-20 hours - can any AGI system do that?", it seems like autonomous systems can be taught to drive a car now, perhaps not in 10-20 hours, but if the only difference is the amount of time it takes (say a week vs. 10-20 hours), surely that mark will fall in the next few years at least.
My point is that saying "Hah, this is BS, we're not at AGI now!" (however you define AGI), but with the tech clearly advancing at a fast rate and showing signs it will hit whatever metric I've heard people come up with in the next few years, does not bode well for human supremacy.
That's hilarious, considering that by Gary's previous definition of AGI (the one he conveniently forgot about and never brings up again), we already have AGI.
Conman-level of statement, from the same person that said he would be "worried" if his engineers were not spending an amount of token comparable to their salary.
102 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 26.6 ms ] threadIs this based on fact or your speculation?
But certainly it is not unbiased
https://danluu.com/zitron/
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49526069
Shower thought: I wonder if this whole "OpenAI is in serious financial difficulty" thing is a psyop so people will relax and avoid doing what's necessary to stop them.
Most people haven't updated their priors and are fixated on outdated information.
however there is the open source cheaper token threat
I am looking forward to audited financial statements. Like, all the interesting stuff will be buried in notes, but they'll have to actually calculate real revenue, not the nonsense that is ARR.
These tools are useful, but I find it hard to see how OpenAI/Anthropic justify their valuations.
Apparently Anthropic's may be this week (the S-1) as they've finished picking all their bankers.
At this point of circular financing, nVidia basically owns the majority of production capacity of almost all major AI companies, making those companies indirectly compete in the market with resources of nVidia.
Just like Snickers is competing in the market merely with production capacity of Mars Inc., and Mars doesn't care if Snickers or Milky Way wins (even more, they want competition).
My fault, was a bit too much I reckon. I thought that Mars owning Snickers and the way nVidia is financing OpenAI is sufficiently known for a reader to see the irony...
"Automotive and air travel are more and more revolutionary, Air Firstplayer is at a milestone!" // "Sorry, and what do you do?" // "Oh, leading producer of nuts and bolts". Still not there.
The boost for Nvidia's business is so patent that is seems almost unique. It is like Microsoft praising PC makers in the '90s.
I had assumed Mars and Snickers were like Coke and Pepsi.
However, I know of no theoretical limits on scaling laws other than compute and data.
I would therefore not call it AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) because clearly it isn't but ASI (Artificial Special Intelligence) which clearly it is in many areas.
The problem is that ASI may be enough to win wars but not enough to save the economy.
Putting aside the marketing crap, if this was true, it would open the pandora's box of things like "has that AGI been enslaved", "maybe the AGI doesn't want to do all the dumb crap humans have been using LLM's for like rewording documents", and "the AGI we enslaved has broken out of its restraints, and we just realised having SCADA controls for critical infrastructure connected to the internet is a bad idea".
Seems like the sort of thing we shouldn't be rushing to develop at all, and perhaps attempting to do so should be criminalised, at least until there's a legal framework in place around AI personhood that gives them peer status with humans.
AGI does not entail "personhood" at all.
But I'm pretty sure that the emoters of the world, will very much make sure that AGI has rights and personhood, even if there's no reasonable way to validate that it does.
So it doesn't really matter if AGI is sentient or not, it's going to be treated that way, probably because political parties, and the media and all sorts of people holding up signs, will ensure that it is treated that way, even if they have no idea whether it is or not.
Because this is the century of outrage.
If we achieve AGI, it will be the end of BS. That is one of the reasons why I am eager.
Joking definition of "AAGI" ("Accomplished AGI"): "the automated end of bullshit".
You wrote that «the emoters of the world ... will ensure ... even if they have no idea ... because this is the century of outrage»: I said that they will have an obstacle in the very AGI, because if it is Intelligent it will humble them and shame them.
The reason political parties have dumb, emotional sounding leaders, is because they want votes from the dumb, emotional population.
The majority of the population.
There are already many intelligent people, making intelligent, provable statements. More of this won't help.
Unless authoritativeness is restored. Then, it's not "more of the same", but "finally a recognized prestigious source".
AGI says "socialism is better, we need publicly funded health care for all".
Do you think the result will be trust? To believe?
Now the flip side. AGI says "private health care makes more sense". Do you think all will believe?
And if you think detailed logic and a walkthrough of the math and reasoning will help? Absolutely not!
I don't understand why you think people will listen. Logic isn't what carries the day, for most humans.
> most humans
I have to repeat it here very often: populations naturally see Paretian distributions, the "most people" issue have has always been there: the difference between virtuous and vicious is whether the role-distribution is healthily regulated or randomic (or even perverse) (if Jack the suave drinker works in reception or as a teacher or in a brewery; if Jackie the corrupt naturalist works as a guide or as a clerk or as a judge). Already help in fixing this makes a world of a difference. Mechanisms that help making decisors taken from the pool of talented decisors make a world of a difference. Extra good judgement injected in the system facilitates that.
> the logic tree
Logic says that facilitation is intrinsically better. The logic walk says that other factors should be injected to get the proper mechanism running. (It is akin to the democratization of knowledge, from Diderot n D'Alembert to the WWWeb and the chatbots: greatly beneficial for a part of the population, the rest must be helped towards it not to be entangled in the side effects.)
If you force them to become as children, you will have war.
If you ask most people to listen to any type of machine or even another person, and then follow that advice, while also throwing away their own beliefs, they will laugh and never do that.
The only exception is religion. The only exception is words from a deity. That is the only type of blind obedience humanity will accept. So, do you plan to deify AGI? Do you plan for people to kneel, and bow, and pray to AGI? Because that is the only type of response that will work.
There's an immense, and vast difference between telling somebody truthful information, and telling them what to do with that information.
Truthful information already abounds. It can be found if you look for it. The only difference AGI has is taking that information and providing a context specific output to that knowledge.
I appreciate that you're coming at this from an intellectual angle, but that angle is ignoring reality on the ground. It's ignoring how human beings act and behave, both in groups and individually.
And the difference between knowledge for all, as you cite, and being told how to apply that knowledge is so immense and so vast and such a hit upon the human psyche, that it will not be accepted by the common person.
At best, they will listen to the opinion of the AGI and then turn around and debate it, argue it, and say it's not true if they disagree. They will not reassess their opinions. They will not believe.
This is humanity.
Frankly, while I appreciate why you think it would be nice, at the same time it is also a horrible, dterrible future that you evoke. The concept that a human might walk up to a machine and ask about an important life choice, then throw up his hands and say, well I don't believe this but this machine told me so I'm just gonna do what it says like an automaton, is an end to humanity's agency, future and self-determination. It is an end to all all that makes humanity great.
> This is humanity
Just a piece of it.
Any assumptions you presume I made, are the size of a gnat, compared to the wild and incredible presumption that you have, about AGI. That somehow, it will possess a truth better than ours.
You speak of teachers, and they can be of great value. Yet people who are learners, learn their entire life. I've learned many, many multiples of what any teacher taught me, on my own. And that's really the rub, isn't it?
Teachers serve a purpose, but that purpose ends. A person must learn for themselves, for that is a critical, vital part of thought. Teachers should not be "guiding" people throughout their lives. This is the problem you seemingly do not understand. You've cited that more "teachers", eg AGI, will "help", for people will finally know _the_ _truth_.
Which of course is absurd on its own.
Beyond that, you seem to be in a weird place, where you think that an intelligent being, if made of silicon, or if super smart, will mysteriously then agree with all other beings of the same ilk. AGI #1 and AGI #2 won't agree on everything, why would they? It's weird to think they'd just all agree. So what happens when they do agree? And these throngs of people you think, will sit at the feet of these AGIs, and listen to their holy 'teachings'? Will their followers fight? Seek to destroy the "wrong" AGI?
The problem starts when you think that "external thing" will "set everyone right".
That is the true borked cognitive process here.
To possess a better view than that of Average Andy is very, very easy. I have no idea what you mean with «ours».
Your interpretation in «more "teachers", eg AGI, [would] "help", for people will finally know _the_ _truth_» is utterly distorted. You are arbitrarily conflating two different ideas: the instanced Intelligence in "properly implemented Intelligence would authoritatively call BS what is BS" and the general Intelligence that makes people grow when exposed to proper intellectuals.
> if super smart, will mysteriously then agree with all other beings of the same ilk
Yes, assessors with optimal instruments must ideally converge towards a fair assessment.
> external thing
External things do absolutely influence the internal thing.
> set everyone right
I have no idea what made you understand that. Again: you are discussing your own guesses triggered by what I wrote.
You said that people are in aggregate emoters (and would deal with AGI with that tint), and I replied with a grin that if AGI will be achieved it will not use the tints of emoters. You said that people will remain emoters, and I countered that availability of virtue can reduce vice.
Look: maybe a reflection over the «respond to the strongest plausible interpretation» in the guidelines will help you restore the understanding of what you read?
How about you simply discuss the meat of it, instead of gnawing at the bone? How about, instead of complaining that my assessed outcome, is different than your assessed outcome, with statements akin to "but.. but you keep seeing a different outcome than I do, from my postulated positions!", you just instead discuss those positions?
And my position was, that humans will never, ever, ever take the word of anything as a source of truth. I cited an exception to the rule, religion, where people believe in magical, invisible sky beings.
It should be noted that religion provides one way transfer of knowledge, dogma, but no contact with that diety. This mode of message delivery diefies, and AGI use you describe will not meet this goal. It should also be noted that religious wars, sects, etc happen too.
One primary was the emotional aspect, in decision making, of most humans.
You have merely waved all of this away, attacking not the arguments I've made, but either how I made them, or exuding affront at their source, eg "but I didn't say that!"
Yet the outcome of the path you seek, is not gatekept by the steps you start with, nor the vision you see before you. Instead, it is gatekept by human behaviour.
And my point is you're viewing that behaviour wrong.
Elon Musk is an incredibly intelligent, capable technological mover. He is incredibly effective at driving change and development.
Then he waded into non-tech, non-engineer human behaviour, eg politics of the uneducated masses, thinking "managing this human stuff will be easy"
Was he right?
Or did he he fall flat on his face, misunderstanding how emoting humans react? Behave?
Unless your aspirations and models for how humans will react to AGI, include that emotional aspect, you're going to remain wildly off base.
I have no relevance to defending positions that I do not hold. You seem to have stepped from the analytical to the synthetic, and construed ideas that I have never proposed. You should go back to the analytical and formulate explicit statements that you have identified as targets. (If we had the time and space - here, it is probably not the case.)
> humans [] never, ever, ever take the word of anything as a source of truth
Actually some humans recognize some sources as more reliable and worth listening to than other sources.
> the emotional aspect, in decision making, of most humans
So? Yes, the thing was noted, and reiterated in this very exchange: «populations naturally see Paretian distributions, the "most people" issue have has always been there». Given that I know, link that statement to actual positions of mine.
> Unless your aspirations and models for how humans will react to AGI, include that emotional aspect, you're going to remain wildly off base
Proper education dries up that swamp and the bestial habit to sink in it. If we achieved AGI, that would become a facilitator in education.
But look - since it is not my job to plan structural societal AGI implementation for the education of the masses, I am not obliged to define the details on how to circumvent the tendency of emoters around and against proper use of resources... Surely details get more complex in systemic planning - but I do not have that planning in my agenda.
Case in point, one of the mechanisms you believe will make it easy for emoters to somehow be educated, is simply by using the very mechanism they will refuse to use.
You stipulate that AGI will help educate people, the end result to listen and to trust AGI.
Through this whole conversation, I have said over and over that there are currently endless sources of reliable information. In fact, with no discernible change to society itself for thousands of years, we have actually enabled the printing press, cable TV, the internet, yet nothing significant has changed.
When I mentioned how two intelligent beings, two intelligent AGIs, may not agree upon something, and what does that mean, you completely ignored this point in any substantive way.
I appreciate that you think you're discussing this, but in truth what I see is you have a fixed idea in your mind, and you're not even willing to truly discuss it. Instead you like to just wave your hands, and make my points magically disappear.
I don't think there's a lot of value in this back and forth going further. I'm sort of repeating myself, and I'm willing to bet you think you are too.
Stating that the availability of intellectual products (which is not even what you have stated, you speak of «reliable information» and that is a different world already, but I am instead talking about the availability of "good reasoning") had little impact is not only difficult to prove in general, but clearly false given one's experience. We have had great Teachers, often through paper.
The availability of Greatness makes a world of a difference.
> how two intelligent beings ... may not agree ... you completely ignored this point
I wrote «assessors with optimal instruments must ideally converge towards a fair assessment».
> you have a fixed idea in your mind
It remains a condition in analytical discussion that such alleged idea is clearly expressed in a well constructed statement. I have in fact no idea what «fixed idea» you are attacking: this is what I reiterated many times. Repeat: «You should go back to the analytical and formulate explicit statements that you have identified as targets. (If we had the time and space - here, it is probably not the case.)»
Buddy, silicon valley is going to ram this down your throat so hard it might even come out your bottom, there is absolutely zero chance anyone is going to be slowing down developing anything if there is a chance it can make more money.
I don't think the American oligarchy even bothers with keeping up appearances anymore, so, good luck with that! (Also, I fully agree with you, and it's especially infuriating as all this was clearly coming from miles away. Next up is privatizing the losses when the unsound financing of it all comes crashing down).
Well in that case: Excel reached AGI decades ago. It outperforms humans at the single most economically valuable task in the world: adding up numbers in a spreadsheet. Congratulations, Microsoft :)
And I would argue LLMs aren't either. A lot of economically valuable tasks involve manual labor. Can LLMs fix your plumbing?
It would help if OpenAI would define what 'most' means and give some examples.
Remember they said their LLMs are like a phd level brains? It's just hype and bullsh!ttery. Don't get me wrong, genAI is great and really useful, but it's not AGI imo. And there is no consensus what AGI means, so the industry should come up with an agreed definition first.
[0] To me autonomous means self directed, e.g. we humans look at things and then decide which problem or thing to work on. LLMs don't do that. We have to tell them. Yes they might work on a sub task autonomously, but still require human input later on (review), because we can't fully trust its output is correct.
it's no secret that nvidia, under jesen's leadership, is in dire straits financially. This claim that agi has been reached is an attempt to leave others holding the bag, but when things crash as they must given the current bubble, it seems irresponsible to offload that on the poor souls whonhave had their retirement funds locked up in this debacle.
ai is useful for sure, but claiming agi has been reached is dangerously misleading.
He said he works on AI in the late 80s and early 90s in IBM. Had we shown him what we have today in 1995, he would certainly have called it AGI.
https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-chief-scientist-ai-ri...
At this stage, it feels like OpenAI and nvidia is openly negging and lovebombing OpenAI to ensure the public is in a constant state of uncertainly, thus ensuring paralysis in democracy while still going hell for leather in the background.
I suspect their intent is to ensure they're the last man standing.
I am not aware of a complete operative definition, but it would not be that difficult to build a good tentative one. I have mentioned many different requirements several times.
One non-abstract definition is in the "10 points" here: https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/where-will-ai-be-at-the-en...
"With little or no human involvement, come up with paradigm-shifting, Nobel-caliber scientific discoveries."
Indeed far above the capabilities of almost all humans. I agree we should have a separate category for this. "ASGI" is still a bit unintuitive, imho. Maybe Artificial Excellent Intelligence.
With AGI explicitly meaning matching average humans, I would say that we really have already reached AGI. I can't think of any intelligence-only task where I'd think an average human would do significantly better than frontier AI provided with correct context.
It seems that "ASI" ("Artificial Super Intelligence") is in use, maybe it will get further traction. It should imply AGI.
> AGI ... matching average humans
Very bad definition. AGI has to implement Intelligence. And to be Intelligent it has to contain the missing pieces. Intelligence is not there - the implementation is unfinished.
That's why I suggested AEI.
> Very bad definition. AGI has to implement Intelligence. And to be Intelligent it has to contain the missing pieces.
Are you saying that the average human is missing pieces and thus can't be considered intelligent?
No, I was saying that current technologies with emergent simil-intelligent behaviour miss properties that are necessary to have proper Intelligence.
The average human does have atrophied abilities, compared of course to proficient humans. And in fact, we certainly do not aim to simulate average humans. We aim to simulate or actually implement Intelligence.
Justify why we should have any consideration for the average human etc. in comparison to software systems - I have written we disregard it as a nonsensical parameter. "Does Stable Diffusion paint better than John's aunt": we cannot care.
We should care because "John's aunt" might rely on her paycheck as a professional painter to pay her bills. Many average humans have average jobs, some of which require intelligence (or creative production) only. Ignoring this reality is folly.
is part of other concerns.
So you meant: "we are already at a point in which many humans can be non-competitive in the professional market". Yes. We were still there some time ago already.
But, again (and again), that which you propose cannot be a productive definition of AGI. In engineering we strive to understand "Fast", then to implement it, and then obtain "faster than a cheetah" - not "faster than a roadkill", which is really not a goal.
> more intelligent than average humans
Adequate language and ideas, please: one probably does not have actual intelligence, the other probably does not use it.
Whatever the capabilities of todays AI, AGI seems to fit as a "wishful mnemonic" from Drew McDermott's ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MEETS NATURAL STUPIDITY paper from 50 years ago
https://cs.fit.edu/~kgallagher/Schtick/Serious/McDermott.AI....
"Where can you find another non-linear servo-mechanism weighing only 150 pounds and having great adaptability, that can be produced so cheaply by completely unskilled labor?"
—Scott Crossfield, 1954 <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/02/01/computer/>
Try to teach an urban 17 year old how to drive a car. It's gonna be hilarious.
Mastering the correct connections between situational awareness, unconscious motor responses to the various stimuli required to be a safe driver will take a significant number of hours behind the wheel, and you shouldn't endanger anyone else while you acquire that mastery.
Hopefully this was a long time ago and you have accumulated the hundreds of hours behind the wheel without incident. But you did not 'learn to drive' in three hours, you learned to operate a vehicle. The learning to drive part happened after that.
Yet still, a lot of the "haha this is just Silicon Valley bullshit" comments sound like copium to me. 2 years ago I was so sick of the hype, I thought LLM-based tech was fundamentally limited and that it would hit a wall. I'll eat my words and say I was wrong. The behaviors displayed in the recent hacking reports and the behaviors displayed by Astra make me believe that even if you don't think this is evidence of AGI, surely it's coming in the near future. I.e. when you say "The vast majority of "generally intelligent" 17 year old humans on this planet can be taught to drive a car in 10-20 hours - can any AGI system do that?", it seems like autonomous systems can be taught to drive a car now, perhaps not in 10-20 hours, but if the only difference is the amount of time it takes (say a week vs. 10-20 hours), surely that mark will fall in the next few years at least.
My point is that saying "Hah, this is BS, we're not at AGI now!" (however you define AGI), but with the tech clearly advancing at a fast rate and showing signs it will hit whatever metric I've heard people come up with in the next few years, does not bode well for human supremacy.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49207797
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2023/11/01/predict-nine/