We can do one better. The J-space discovery effectively brought down all remaining barriers. Synthetically-conscious AI is now a probabilistic fact. It all depends on who would publish the architecture first. Does anyone want to collaborate on such an architecture?
What I like about these developments is how they are rapidly eclipsing theories that have been clogging the arteries of real scientific progress. RIP IIT. Hello synthetically-enabled, seamlessly-collaborative global workspace conscious access!!! On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 8:52 PM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote: > I suppose that computers programming themselves better than any humans can > isn't really news anymore. > > > https://mlq.ai/news/openais-ai-sweeps-all-five-problems-at-atcoder-world-tour-finals-beating-every-human/ > > Meanwhile Noah Smith argues that AI has reached the pinnacle of > intelligence. > > > https://open.substack.com/pub/noahpinion/p/what-will-more-intelligence-actually > > On the one hand, intelligence depends on knowledge and computing power, > which can grow almost without bound. On the other, if you measure > intelligence by the Turing test or by IQ, then there is nothing above human > level that can be measured. > > IQ is an attempt to assign a scalar quantity to a broad set of human > capabilities that aren't relevant to machines. As long as the tests are > designed and scored by humans, we have no way to know what questions to ask > or whether the AI answered correctly. > > Noah argues that once AI collects all human knowledge, it is limited by > how fast it can do experiments to gain more knowledge. Some experiments > take a long time, where faster computers don't help. We don't know why > there is an epidemic of obesity and diabetes. We don't know why skin cancer > rates are rising. We don't have any drugs or interventions proven to slow > aging. > > The economic motive for pouring trillions into AI is to automate human > labor, to sell us what we want. That means modeling human brains. The > Turing test, not universal intelligence, is the relevant measure here. > Currently LLMs have the knowledge equivalent to 10,000 people. They are > fluent in 200 languages. They are Ph.D. level experts in every branch of > science, law, medicine, and engineering. They can write and debug code > hundreds of times faster than humans in every language. It would max out an > IQ test at 200 even though it is far higher. AI will only get better, but > the changes will be invisible to us because we lack the intelligence to > recognize it. Once they passed the Turing test in 2023, it looked like > there was nowhere else to go. > > We have made ourselves irrelevant, exactly like we planned. > > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > > > > > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tb3ee7f27b4bafd90-M221da6c6bfd3f682a71ffa3c> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tb3ee7f27b4bafd90-Mb1a0bdb3ebadb9c14d58e08a Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
