Hi Linas , Question , how does your jigsaw concept work with overlapping concepts ? and how do you know when a jigsaw piece is a useful higher order representation vs not ? i get that jigsaws can make bigger jigsaws , is it possible to compress jigsaws such that you can search just the higher order jigsaw space and not worry about the lower jigsaw spaces and then how does that apply to higher or tangential layers of representation? pardon if i am speaking in ignorance just was confused by how jigsaws .. FIT into all of this ..
On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 8:19 PM Victor Vahidi Motti <[email protected]> wrote: > > At the UN General Assembly, Trump said: "The use of the word artificial > makes intelligence fake, it makes it sound fake and it is not fake. It's > actually amazing... From this point forward, all of the United States' > documents... will be changed to use the much more accurate term 'super' as > opposed to 'artificial. So it's super intelligence." > > The State Department Bureau of International Organization Affairs > immediately emailed staff: "Following the president's remarks at the GA > today, please change all references of 'Artificial Intelligence' to 'Super > Intelligence'... We will be using 'SI' in all remarks" > > It started as a State Dept order, not yet government-wide, but it fits my > non duality philosophy and INDO-IRANIC frame perfectly. > > My point in Thus Spoke Arta is exactly what Mill was dissecting in his > 1874 famous essay "On Nature". Mill says we use "Nature" in two > contradictory ways: > > 1. Everything that is — in which case everything that emerges on Earth is > natural by definition, including LLMs. "How can it be otherwise?" as I put > it. > > 2. Nature as the opposite of artifice — what happens without human > intervention — in which case calling it "artificial" is a moral judgment, > not a description. > > Mill concludes the second definition is incoherent. A beaver dam is > natural, a human dam is "artificial"? Both are a mammal rearranging matter > to achieve a goal. > > This is where my split between INDO and IRANIC is related: > > INDO branch — alignment: Rta in Veda, Dharma. Nature has an order, human > wisdom is to align with it. The classic deep-ecology reading. If you build > an AGI, you must align it to Nature. > > IRANIC branch — improvement: Arta/Asha in Avesta, Spenta Mainyu — the > Bounteous Spirit/Mind/Geist. Humans have a duty not just to align but to > improve nature, to be co-creators against Druj (decay/falsehood). That is > Zoroastrian ethics that Mill echoes when he says humans have a duty to > amend nature. > > Trump's move from "Artificial" to "Super" is unconsciously the second > branch. "Artificial" says: this thing is fake, not-Nature, other. "Super" > says: this thing is Nature continuing, intensifying itself through us. It > is emergent and therefore natural, just at a higher degree. > > If natural language and formal language of mathematics can be modeled > successfully by tensors that can learn using largely linear algebra > operations, and intelligence is fundamentally a physical field we all human > and non human can connect to (Paul Werbos' soul-solar field), then calling > the result "artificial" preserves Cartesian dualism. Calling it "super" > affirms non-duality — Aham Brahmasmi; Truth and Nature as continuous. > > With all said I admit the danger, of course, is that "Super Intelligence" > smuggles in supremacism — that bigger is better — while "Artificial" at > least kept humility. The IRANIC path requires Arta/Asha — improvement means > more truthful, more orderly, "more Life-Earth supporting", not just more > powerful or more profitable, which both seem unfortunately still relevant > in Washington DC and Silicon Valley, respectively. > > This is how I frame it in Thus Spoke Arta— that planet Earth entering a > new era is not humans making artificial things, but Earth growing a new > cognitive organ towards a Planetary Brain or Planetary Intelligence > arriving after Super Intelligence > > > > Best Regards, > Victor Vahidi Motti > Author | Speaker | Advisor > > *Thus Spoke Arta: How Our Planet Is Entering a New Era* (2026), > *The Loom* (2025), > *Playbook of Foresight: Designing Strategic Conversations for > Transformation and Resilience (2025), * > *Planetary Foresight and Ethics: A Vision for Humanity’s Futures (2025),* > *A Transformation Journey to Creative and Alternative Planetary Futures* > (2019). > > > > Recipient, 2026 Springer Nature Editor of Distinction Awards — Editorial > Contribution & Author Service Awards: > > https://link.springer.com/journal/40309/updates/53122758 > > > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2026, 3:40 PM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> When I joined the AGI list over 20 years ago, there were a lot of >> individual AGI projects by people interested in understanding human >> cognition rather than world domination. I understood that the obvious >> application of AGI would be automating human labor. I estimated that to be >> worth global GDP divided by interest rates, or about $1 quadrillion. If the >> problem was easy, it would have already been solved. Nobody believed me. >> Now all those projects have been abandoned while we pour trillions into AI. >> >> My cost estimate was based on hardware, software, and knowledge >> collection. All of the projects focused on software, which was the least >> expensive part. The most expensive was collecting human knowledge, which I >> estimated at 10^17 bits (10^10 people x 10^9 bits long term memory minus >> 99% overlap). It has to be collected by surveillance at 5-10 bits per >> second through speech and writing, costing in the hundreds of trillions. >> The Common Crawl is only 10^13 bits compressed. This is why AI still >> doesn't know how to do your job. >> >> The second area of interest was uploading or life extension. This led to >> endless debates about consciousness. I pointed out since 1999 that text >> prediction measured by compression is sufficient to pass the Turing test, >> and is therefore indistinguishable from consciousness. The big AI companies >> seem to agree that consciousness is irrelevant. >> >> I don't think we are going to see radical life extension or longevity >> escape velocity either. Global life expectancy has been increasing steady >> at 0.2 years per year for the last century and I don't think that will >> change much. Unlike Moore's law, the cost of medical testing on humans is >> rising exponentially. >> >> The third area of interest was the singularity. We had a separate mailing >> list for that, but it died years ago. Nobody on the AGI list believed that >> their project had any realistic chance of recursively self improving to >> reach infinite intelligence anytime soon. I argued that the premise that >> surpassing human intelligence would launch a fast takeoff was flawed, >> because intelligence is not a point on a line. We still argue now about >> whether we have passed it. >> >> The centi-billionaires and trillionaires interested in world domination >> have no interest in what we are doing. >> >> -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2026, 1:40 AM Zoltan Nadasdy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I don't think the goal of the current AI development is to better >>> understand ourselves, our own cognition ... >>> The goal is simply to dominate the market. Those pursuing the >>> understanding of human cognition you would find in working in neuroscience, >>> psychology or cognitive science. >>> The two branches of AI development, one that aims to understand human >>> cognition and the other to engineer systems that emulate human cognition >>> have split a long time ago in the late 80s and early 90s. >>> >>> The subject of our biggest fear of unleashing AI should not be the >>> software itself but the human greed of unleashing it. >>> -z >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 7:23 PM Fleeky Flanco <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> the term deceipt is really weird here? deceit implies goals , goals >>>> imply an inner world .. basically exactly what linas is arguing .. >>>> or do you mean something else ? we need a different term .. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 8:11 PM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2026, 4:32 AM David Bray, PhD <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Open question to consider: >>>>>> >>>>>> What if the Turing Test was the wrong test - because at its heart >>>>>> it’s actually a machine deceiving a human vs. necessarily helping a >>>>>> human? >>>>>> >>>>>> https://apolitical.co/en/articles/rethinking-ai-success-from-imitating-us-to-helping-us-improve-195 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let's not lose sight of the goal of AGI. It is to automate human >>>>> labor, worth $60 trillion per year. It is the reason we are pouring >>>>> trillions of dollars into the problem. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> maybe for some greedy billionaires or cynics , but i honestly hope the >>>> actual goal is to better understand ourselves , our own cognition , and the >>>> cognition of other intelligent agents around us and in the universe .. >>>> >>>> >>>>> To automate labor, it must be able to do everything that humans can >>>>> do. The Turing test evaluates language modeling, the ability to understand >>>>> language and respond appropriately, which is a requirement of every job. >>>>> It >>>>> implies human level knowledge of the world. It does not test embodiment, >>>>> like vision, hearing, and robotics. But language is a big part of it, >>>>> probably the most important part. And the rest is being solved too. We >>>>> have >>>>> AI that can understand speech, describe images and video, and drive a car >>>>> with 1/8 the accident rate of humans. Humanoid robots can compete in >>>>> sports. All of these functions require integration with a language model. >>>>> >>>>> You are right that AI should not deceive humans that it itself is >>>>> human or conscious or that it has feelings. But it must be capable of >>>>> doing >>>>> so to meet its other goals. We can instruct it appropriately and use text >>>>> compression as an alternative test. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From colleague and friend Vint Cerf on this as well: >>>>>> https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/turing-test-2/ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A computer judge in the Turing test is really a competition between >>>>> two computers. The winner is the one that is better at predicting text. So >>>>> really it measures the same thing as the Turing test or text compression. >>>>> >>>>> -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> --- >>> Zoltan Nadasdy >>> Dept. of Neurology, Dell Medical School, UT Austin ([email protected]) >>> Dept. of Cognitive Psychology, ELTE Budapest [email protected] >>> >>> http://brainstim.psy.utexas.edu >>> >>> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9e51fc70bbc4e9fc-M95221de81a9a7c74159f58b0 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
