So, why wouldn't they keep the AGI a secret?

But an AGI is going to be millions of times faster than a human.

Soo, basically they wouldn't release an AGI.

Yes, but they don't need to sell it to make money because the AGI can make all the money for them.

I mean if you have a golden-egg laying goose, then you don't even need to sell the goose. You can have all the money in the world.

An AGI is, metaphorically, like a super-genius. They wouldn't want a super genius to be poached by somebody else.

Probably not, but then again a lot of people are controlled by corporations.

They can make more money by making the AGI come up with innovations.

Nah, there's nowhere in the post that says that the corporations are evil. However, if they really had an AGI, then they wouldn't release it to the public.

"General intelligence" is an intelligence that is capable of any kind of intelligence. Sentience is a kind of an intelligence. We have yet to have a sentient AI. Not even close.

It makes no sense for a corporation to release a golden duck laying goose to the public. If they really have an AGI, then they can just use it to produce as much innovations as possible. They can just fire every employees except for a few. People have way too much wishful thinking because they so badly want to believe that people have created an AGI.

And why would a corporation release an AGI to the public? It's a golden duck laying goose, they would not let their rivals have access to such a thing even if they have it. It makes no sense and people are eating up corporate PR like the gullible fools that they are.

Corporations only release things that "moderately useful", not revolutionary on the scale of AGI.

An AGI isn't just a collection of separate single-stance intelligences or narrow AIs. An AGI is a general intelligence, meaning that it's an intelligence that is capable of any kind of intelligences. It takes more than being just a collection of many. An AGI is capable of say, sentience, which is a type of an intelligence.

Nobody is claiming that AGI isn't possible. What people are skeptical of is the endless corporate PR that "We have created AGI" or "AGI is near". There are so many gullible fools believing in corporate PR of AI hype. It's beyond pathetic.

You're talking about how we don't need AGI in a Singularity sub? Jesus Fucking Christ, an AGI is the entire point of a singularity.

AI hypers: AI will be so smart that there will be either utopia or dystopia

Also AI hypers: Durr, AI can't be as smart as Einstein, that's moving the goalpost!

It's not that they cannot. It's that we still have no idea how sentience works.

The point is that it neither flies nor sails. It's basically "cargo cult science" where it only looks like a plane.

>LLMs are capable of completing functions that were previously only solvable by human intellects

That's only because they were already solved by the human intellect. It's only a mimicking machine.

LLM isn’t AGI and is nothing like AGI.

We're so lucky to experience something that is yet to happen.

Bro, singularity hasn't even happened yet.

Actually, you’re the one need to prove that statistics will somehow evolve into an AGI…

You can’t prove a negative.

Turing came up with a model of a theoretical general-purpose computer called the Turing machine, in which its equivalence is called Turing complete, which pretty much all modern general-purpose CPUs will have to abide by.

>A Turing machine is a general example of a central processing unit (CPU) that controls all data manipulation done by a computer, with the canonical machine using sequential memory to store data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine

Yes, but in order to emulate something you'd have to program the emulation first.

Again, how would you come up with mathematical axioms with just probabilities?

That contradicts the Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which has been mathematically proven that you cannot come up with mathematical axioms within a mathematical system.

Even if you could replicate the biological neural network which happens to be Turing complete, that still says nothing about programming the human-level intelligence, which is a different matter altogether.

And 1+1=2 is a non-probabilistic answer that can't be come up with probabilities.

>100% of the time, 1+1 =2.

That makes no sense. 1+1=2 is not a probability.

Probability says there's a 50% chance that 1+1=2 or 1+1=3.

But you need to come up with a non-probabilistic solution in the first place.