Thanks for finally answering this mystery for me.

1. Clicked on the link.

2. Got pay-walled.

3. Remembered that I had access to the Atlantic through Apple News+.

4. Opened the News App on my phone.

5. Went to Magazines.

6. Found the latest issue of The Atlantic.

7. Found the hidden link to go to the magazine's "channel," since this article was not actually in the magazine.

8. Thankfully, this article was the most recent thing posted.

9. Read the article hunched over my phone while the still-paywalled version was looming over my head on my computer screen.

Somebody has to figure out how to fix this.

I'm just saying that I don't think there's any point on that line where we will be comfortable admitting that the machine is "intelligent" or "conscious" or "AGI," or whatever, and that I appreciate attempts to quantify (or at least qualify) what we MEAN when we say that, rather than just goalpost-moving.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00100...

I get frustrated often when people argue "well, it isn't really intelligent" and then give examples that are clearly dependent on our brain's chemical state and our bodies' existence in-the-physical-world.

I get the feeling that when/if we are all enslaved by a super-intelligent AI that we do not understand its motives, we will still argue that it is not intelligent because it doesn't get hungry and it can't prove to us that it has Qualia.

This paper argues that gpts are bad at understanding human risk/reward functions, which seems like a much more explicit way to talk about this, and also casts it in a way that could help reframe the debate about how human evolution and our physical beings might be significantly responsible for the structure of our rational minds.

Nothing will ever beat the following as tech demo for how easy it is to make interactive UIs, but anybody who ever tried to reason through a large Angular 1 application would seriously hesitate to want to use it for something much more complicated.