which gets us closer to philosophical questions which I'm personally not that interested in.

>In the same way airplanes fail the 'bird replacement' requirement, AIs currently fail most AGI requirements only on the terms: "fully", "all" and "any".

I'm not sure we want a machine that fully succeeds that test.

Planes pass the 'bird replacement' test on the only criteria that matters to us ... flying.

If we wanted nest making planes I think we'd have them by now. Nest making doesn't rate highly on the problems we're looking to solve though.

I don't want a machine that is moody, or depressed or has schizophrenia, which are all pat of the human condition.

We don't need the human "intuition magic dust" to do 99.99999% of useful work.

They're machines designed to do the work we don't want to. That's as "general" as their intelligence needs to be.

I'd prefer if my clothes folding machine did not have an existential crisis.

maybe. we'll see.

Do you possess magnetoreception? a stupid pigeon can "see" the earth's magentic field. why are you blind to it? does a lack of magnetoreception make your intelligence any less "general"

no, you're just blind to it because that's just the way it is.

LLMs are blind to character counting because that's the way they are.

It didn't stop ChatGPT from finding the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample.

Human intelligence and machine intelligence are only going to cross over to a certain degree.

same as plane flight and bird flight are only kinda related.

AI does not need to feel emotions or have a heartbeat to be useful. It only needs to perform a task correctly à la Chinese room.

>therefore cannot fully replicate human-like intelligence

this does not follow. planes don't flap wings therefore they cannot fly?

turns out that flapping wings is not the right way to unlock human flight.

computers could count the Rs in strawberry since vacuum tubes. that measure is irrelevant.

this has been debunked too many times to bother rebutting. they struggle with those things because of the way they are.

it's completely irrelevant.

greed

nobody thought that

that's some Harry Potter kind of "writes itself" book.

at this point, for me, any comment about LLMs that begins with "it's just ..." is hard to take seriously.

Terrence is impressed. Good enough for me.

It'll stop the ones doing it for the lols, but I imagine they're a minority anyway.

Initially considered a useless vestige, now thought to be involved with maintaining gut bacteria.

That's cool, sounds like it's not for you then.

There are plenty of people who would appreciate it though.

I've been using N++ for a long time. I have tried just about every editor out there and I always end up back in N++.

It's old. It is missing a lot of the bells and whistles of newer editors, but I'm still most productive in old faithful :)

I've been a gamer for just about 40 years. Gaming is my "thing"

I found the challenges fun, but easy. Coming back and reading comments from people struggling with the games, my first thought was - yup definitely not a gamer.

My approach was to poke at the controls to suss the rules, then the actual solutions were really straightforward.

fwiw, I'm pretty dumb generally, but these kinds of puzzles are my jam.

A little different if you're talking foreign invasion obviously. In Poland's case it was Poles vs Poles and regardless of the level of tyranny, soldiers have trouble shooting their countrymen if they're sitting in a factory.

If the other guy is actively shooting at you though?... The logic is simple to follow.

dude c'mon, be serious.

the response to "my house is on fire" is not "gee I wonder what would happen if I added more fuel..."

The response is to starve the fire of oxygen. Labour is a government's oxygen.

my family escaped Poland as political refugees before the end of communism. Poland famously had bloodless revolution in 1989 exactly this way.

Down tools. stop work and the economy essentially seized up (practically over night).

>Sometimes it will work out, but not without sacrifice.

Sacrifice is always necessary.

If the factories stop, there is no way to move forward, regardless of how tyrannical the government.

fwiw, I mostly agree with you (ai training stinks of some kind of infringement), but legal precedent is not favouring copyright holders at least for now.

In Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta "judges have now held that copying works to train LLMs is “transformative” under the fair use doctrine" [1]

i.e. no infrigement - bearing in mind this applies only in the US. The EU and the rest of the world are setting their own precedents.

Copyright can only be contested in the jurisdiction that the alleged infringement occurred, and so far it seems that fair use is holding up. I'm curious to watch how it all plays out.

It might end up similarly to Uber vs The World. They used their deep pockets to destabilise taxis globally and now that the law is catching up it doesn't matter any more - Uber already won.

[1] https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/07/a-tale-...

You gloss over this as if it's a given. I don't agree. I think you're doing a different thing when you're sampling billions of things equallly.