You mean Anthropic's Jacobian lens for peeking inside Claude's short term memory to see what it's thinking? Yeah, it does look a lot like how humans think.
Consciousness was never the issue. Any machine that passes the Turing test is conscious as far as we can tell. All it takes is text prediction. About 80% of us believe that when we die, our immortal soul goes to some kind of afterlife. It's the other 20% that brought us AI. -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] On Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 11:10 AM Quan Tesla <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-Mb1a0bdb3ebadb9c14d58e08a> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tb3ee7f27b4bafd90-M261be6bcd7cf7751af37a169 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
