AI doesn’t have to destroy us, we’re doing a fine job of that on our own.

In this light, Bastian’s story hits harder now than ever and I can’t help but see him as an avatar for mediocrity, wastefulness, and a society without the capacity for empathy.

Almost all people can be fooled at least some of the time. Patience may be the best approach as we prepare for the impending onslaught of claims surrounding the emergence of “human-level” AI. 

The only path forward is advanced AI systems to become so useful that we forget we’re using them. Simply put: AI needs to fade into the background.

Chatbots don’t actually exist. No, we’re not trying to create a conspiracy theory. What we mean is this: large language models (LLMs) aren’t “entities” or “beings.”

Here’s a fun way to spend 10 minutes: try to think of something ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, or Grok might output to convince you they’re capable of thought, agency, or sentience. 

The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, recently joined the chorus of economists who believe Donald Trump’s global trade tariffs were calculated wrong. According to multiple sources, the formula used contains a math error that exaggerates its effectiveness by a factor of four.

The average American doesn’t believe that AI will make their lives better any time soon, according to a recently published survey from Pew Research.

Researchers at University of California at San Diego have declared the Turing Test defeated! In a five minute, real-time conversation with humans and chatbots, nearly three out of four humans mistakenly identified the AI chat partner as a fellow human. 

SoftBank bets $1T on US robotics infrastructure, China pours $888B into its own, and Tesla calls for a national robotics strategy. 

Recent comments from world-renowned British computer scientist Stuart Russell indicates that the sector of AI developers and organizations dedicated to scaling large language models to “human-level” may have reached that point, financially speaking. 

There’s nothing you can think that can’t be thunk, scale is all you need.

AI agents? Check. Action, combat, and treasure? Check, check, and check. Unleashing hidden flocks of angels on unwitting hordes of zombies to prove the existence of artificial “thought?” 

Check?

Joe Tsai, the chairman of Alibaba, a big tech company based in China, recently took the stage at a speaking gig aimed at young entrepreneurs in Hong Kong. In a surprise twist, he spent a significant portion of his time criticizing the AGI and robotics industries. This, despite the fact that Alibaba is a global leader in both.

Google launched Gemini Pro Experimental 2.5, a “thinking model,” none of today’s generative AI models have scored higher than 4% against a human average of 60% on the new ARC-AGI-2 test. And Jack Clark is becoming increasingly convinced that AGI is right around the corner.

Our goal is to develop a scientific method for investigating claims related to the emergence of AGI. Not for us, not for Big Tech, but for everyone. That’s why we’re an independent, open science group working in the public interest. 

We’re launching a blog today to discuss AI and share information about our research group, the Center for Artificial General Intelligence Investigations.

Explore the complexities of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). We delve into its definition, challenges, and our scientific approach to testing claims of human-level AI. Learn about our rigorous methods and public research.

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the hottest topic in tech. Everyone from presidents and prime ministers to gig workers and influencers are discussing it. And the whole planet has a stake in how the so-called “race to AGI” plays out.