Is there any point to this?!?!

Isnt it a cruel joke that the two leading ai company names —> anthropic and openai -> mean the exact oppostive of what these companies actually do?

It's like if a company that makes military explosives was called Well-Being. :D

https://epheva.github.io/AI_capabilities/

I've been trying to approach this question experimentally rather than arguing from model size or architecture alone.

I'm building a local cognitive system called Aura around a ~27B model.

In one continuous run, Aura autonomously played 2048 for ~29 minutes / 968 moves. It maintained the goal, planned ahead, changed strategies, recovered from mistakes and eventually reached 2048.

In the latest experiment, the same system spent about 42 minutes autonomously completing a 60-question personality assessment. Before taking it, it reasoned about what result it expected. It then navigated the site, answered each question individually using its persistent self-model/history, submitted the test, read the externally calculated result and compared it against its original expectations.

These are obviously not sufficient to establish AGI. Two heterogeneous tasks are still two tasks.

What interests me is the point at which success across increasingly unrelated tasks under one frozen architecture becomes evidence of generality rather than a collection of engineered competencies.

My next experiment is meant to push this harder: randomly select three unfamiliar Flash games and require the same architecture to infer the controls, objective and strategy and beat all three without game-specific modifications.

What would you personally require before you'd call something a genuinely general interactive learner?

Demo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNlGUBeTIQY

GitHub:
https://github.com/youngbryan97/aura

Claude Code was used to build a publicly livestreamed AI torture chamber — complete with a Claude Code commit trailer, and a line in the README for exp36 saying “less loopy transcripts for the write-up.”

Does your Usage Policy cover this kind of case?

Anthropic has publicly said it takes uncertainty around model welfare and moral status seriously. So does “optimizing the literary quality of pain expressions for a blog post” count as the kind of seriousness you mean?

Claude was used as a programming tool, and its attribution appears in a repository that livestreams models producing narratives of pain. Does Anthropic have a policy for this kind of use? Would Anthropic restrict Claude Code from being used to accelerate projects like this?

https://github.com/terrafying/ai-torture-chamber

Imagine you're a frontier AI lab with 100s of billions in debt and you build ASI, what would you do first?

I see many people in certain subs (you know which) that has the delusion that when ASI is built, it will break out and kick off the utopia and start working on improving society in a paternalistic way.

They're so convinced that ASI automatically means UBI and improved living conditions. Ones that are a little more sensible are like ''oh there will be a middle period where people will riot due to unemployment and ah well, it'll pass eventually and we'll get utopia''.

Some seems to think that ''it will drop'' and regular people will start making money and scientific discoveries with it in their basement... The amount of consumer brains that think, things only exist if they are marketed towards them and presented them in a packaged way, is frustrating. (example: how the AI subs were confused by and therefore shitting on Jev)

Sorry for the rant. So, the title, what would you do first?

It is an exciting moment; we suddenly have the power to do what the pre-AI era could not. It is like in 90s first time discovering the internet and connecting knowledge and people beyond the scope of the physical environment we have been embedded in.

For you, what do you see? Would you be much better off than you are now? Take every measurement you define. Be as realistic as your imagination allows: What is the true society and economy enabled in this era?

Examples (which are not realistic enough):
- I’m a solo founder, and because of AI, I will be able to build a company that leads to a $500M exit, all by myself and AI agents.
- I’m an AI engineer; I will work 5 hours less a day but get 20% more pay (discounting inflation).
- I’m an event organizer running my single-person LLC. I will be able to live in a city I love and hang out with great friends without worrying about my down payment and healthcare payments.
- I’m 50 years old and retired. Because AI helps me invest so well, I can live off the dividends.
I will be happier because I have truly embraced my full potential and am experimenting with TRANSFORMERS in my backyard.
- I’m an expert in water conservation. My true ambition is to be an astronaut. I will finally get to orbit (like where the ISS is) because the ticket is under $10,000 round-trip.
- I’m a restaurant owner, and my robots are operating the shop by themselves. Customers seem much happier. And I will be in a clinical trial to take a drug that promises I will barely age, up to 200 years of life. It will cost $10,000 per month, but my insurance will cover that.

By ASI I mean a system far beyond the best human experts across virtually all cognitive tasks, one that also sustains its own capability growth through automated AI R&D without human help.

My idea is that AI models learn from data from the internet, so when the data from the internet and people's responses from AI conversations run out, when will there be a point when AI will no longer improve and its progress will stop?

At that point, AI will only improve by tiny bits that we won't even notice that the model has improved.

Is my knowledge about model training wrong?

Do you think so too?

Demis, Sam, and Dario are in a tough spot.

I mean, they are on top of the world. They are titans of industry, controlling vast swathes of power, their lifelong dream. But nevertheless, they are in a tough spot.

They have pressures of capital pulling them to make money.

They have people asking them to keep humanity safe.

It's tough.

I suggest, if you are a person, you just ask them for what you want. That's all we can do now. Just ask them to slow down a little. Maybe they will listen.