I guess the author’s point is that LLMs can’t really learn in real time yet, whereas playing games is basically all about real-time learning. So an LLM can be very good at writing code, but still be terrible at actually playing games.

Personally, I think this is a really hard problem, and it may turn out to be one of the first big walls we hit on the road to AGI.

OpenAI Five doesn’t really know how to play games in general — it only knows how to play Dota.

The only game that matters.

Humans do not have souls, nor do they possess free will in the traditional sense. What we call “consciousness” is merely a product of evolution, and also a tool shaped by evolution.

In essence, consciousness is a complex information input-output system. When such a system reaches a certain level of complexity, it inevitably generates the concept of “I” as a way to simplify the processing of overwhelming information.

Praise be to AI. In 2025, inspired by AI, I feel that I have finally built a complete and unified worldview.

Are we living in a virtual illusion? Are there higher-dimensional rulers, gods, or immortals in the universe? What exactly are the human soul and consciousness?

I feel that these questions now share a single coherent answer. What I have written here is my answer regarding the soul and consciousness.

If this comment is serious, then you may have the beginnings of AI psychosis

I would say "AI psychosis" is a very healthy disease to have. I mean, how should people react to seeing a clump of hardware produce coherent text at a level many actual humans cannot? The spread of reactions we are seeing in people-the disagreements, the extreme sycophancy on one end, and the abject denial on the other, is within parameters.

My life was wrecked by religious dogma, the type that is sustained on "big mysteries" and from there goes directly to imposing an odious recipe for life. So there is consolation to be had on seeing a big mystery crumble and on hearing the outcry. May another mystery crumble on my lifetime.

Computers create coherent math results at levels far beyond humans. A world calculator vs. a number calculator isn't that different.

"Praise be to AI" sounds like something you shouldn't reach in the beginnings of AI psychosis. Same with "I've found a simple answer to the nature of consciousness and the question of the existence of Gods". At that point you've got to in be pretty deep.

Haha, right? The lads talking like he’s the only one to have figured this out and it’s the truth! Philosophising with AI is so mid. This guys the general public.

What you explain is intelligence, which is the subject of the "easy question". Consciousness in this context is the existence of phenomenal, or first person experiences.

The hard question doesn't argue that consciousness is not a product of evolution. It probably is. It's just a question because we don't have a good way of explaining how/why it occurs.

>It's just a question because we don't have a good way of explaining how/why it occurs.

It's that you can't even measure it, since the way it's defined as a subjective experience, no external measure could ever capture it. This is what gives rise to the p-zombie argument.

To get rid of that you have to accept "functional qualia" as basically equivalent to qualia, which solves the p-zombie issue and resolves half of the hard problem. From there, explaining consciousness is no "harder" than explaining other scale-depedent phenomenon in complex systems like LLMs: still hard, but at least tractable with scientific measurements and experiments.

No, we don't even need that. When we realise that we all project consciousness claims on each other from what we observe as zeitgeist now, just to do credit assignment, most of our circular debates will disappear. But this won't happen since many powerful entities in the world ride on the moral ambiguity, and this will hold them accountable.

> What we call “consciousness” is merely a product of evolution, and also a tool shaped by evolution

> When such a system reaches a certain level of complexity, it inevitably generates the concept of “I” as a way to simplify the processing of overwhelming information.

I don't see how this is different from someone saying that a concoction of random ingredients will turn into a magic potion.

The big question is how a group of cells (or potentially something else) becomes sentient. Accepting "because it would be useful" as valid explanation would be the same as accepting Darwinism as a religion rather than science.

There's no single proof that after a system do pass some complexity threshold consciousness develops itself and inevitably generates the "I".

Dolphins and other creatures are likely to have similarly complex systems without “inevitably” generating a concept of “I”.

> What we call “consciousness” is merely a product of evolution, and also a tool shaped by evolution.

that's the easy problem

would you care to link together 'complex IO systems inevitably degenerate to seperating self from environment as part of optimizing calculations' and your three questions? it isnt immediately clear why the concept of self answers the idea of god.

GPTbait

They say cars replaced carriages but created drivers, so no net job loss. They say AI will do the same—destroy some jobs, create others. But bro, the automobile wiped out 95% of the world's horses. And this time, what AI is replacing is humans.

The mind of the blue-eyed must be serene.

> I hate cars way more than I hate AI, but relieving horses of the burden which they carried and the gruesome lives they lived... that's not one of my objections.

I’m so glad those horses got a peaceful retirement at the glue factory.

I wonder what they’ll process your corpse into. Soylent green? Or do you think you’re one of the lucky horses that a wealthy owner take care of?

Not sure if you're able to set your snark aside for a moment, but are we really just talking about fewer humans being economically needed? Perhaps biological human population decreasing?

Is that... so bad?

Do you think that horses are upset that there are fewer of them today, and that somehow they'd rather their population increase but bear the industrial age burdens again?

> but are we really just talking about fewer humans being economically needed? Perhaps biological human population decreasing? Is that... so bad?

Yes, this isn’t a matter of the “well we’ll reach a natural equilibrium overtime”.

If a fair percentage of the people in your society are now no longer economically, needed, they still have upkeep. They still need food. They don’t magically disappear into thin air, and they still need food/shelter /water/etc. How are they to get those things?

Will our leaders, contrary to everything they’ve ever shown us suddenly open their arms and act as mass charity for the masses? They can’t even design an effective welfare program for a pre-AI world.

Will the people displaced simply lie in a ditch somewhere and say “guess it’s time to starve to death”? I suppose Canadian-style suicide-as-service fits my previous Soylent green reference.

Since Claude Code can browse the web, is it fair to think of it as “rewriting and simplifying a compiler originally written in C++ into Rust”?

In the original post Anthropic did point out that Claude Code did not have access to the internet

Presumably it had access to GCC (and LLVM/Clang) sources in it's training data? All of which are hosted or mirrored on Github.

And all of which are in an entirely different language, and which use pretty different architectures to this compiler.

I would've guess so, but I was talking about it in a "does Claude Code (not the model) have access to the internet?", which, according to Anthropic, it didn't.

I believe that if a model can outperform humans in all board/card games, and can autonomously complete all video games, then AGI — or even ASI — has essentially been achieved. We’re still a long way from that.

I don't think so. The author isn't training an LLM, but rather using an LLM to solve a specific problem. This method could also be applied to solve other problems.

Content moderation is incredibly frustrating — it might even be the key reason why Veo2 and even Gemini could ultimately fail. I just want to make some fun videos where my kid plays a superhero, but it keeps failing.

Are you trying to make your kid play a superhero or a specific copyrighted superhero? I'm just asking because I would expect them to attempt to prevent copyright infringement but I'm not sure why they would prevent you from depicting superheros which don't infringe on copyright. Maybe they are attempting to prevent any depictions of children, superhero or otherwise?

I have the same issues with OpenAI. Supposedly Grok is better, but their quality isn't as high.

Oh, DeepOpenAI

Now it includes the highly anticipated PTX! Of course, I don’t understand it, but I’ve already click the star and even the fork button, which basically means I’ve mastered it, right? I feel incredibly powerful right now...