Post #2925484

2026-04-23 14:14 UTC

@kyle@mister.computer ok these are good points. But aside from sophisticated forms of manipulation, I imagine the output of ever-more-intelligent machines to be rejected by decision makers unless it just tells them what they already believe. Humans have an extremely bad track record here. Or perhaps that's kind of the point. The killer product is just more obedient, cheaper labor.

Replies (2)

@kyle@mister.computer 2026-04-23 14:43

@mattiem@mastodon.social IMO that is the biggest threat of AGI. Civilization has the moral arc that it does because, thankfully, being bad is highly correlated with being stupid. e.g. we can rely on the MAGA world to not actually be very effective. AGI would end that correlation, especially because having the most capital is highly correlated with being bad.

Open ##2925485
@cocoaphony@mastodon.social 2026-04-23 15:29

@mattiem@mastodon.social @kyle@mister.computer All my experience so far is that we're already into the upper right of the S-curve. The models are getting incrementally better, but often just moving sideways. Claude 4.5-4.7 is definitely not *exponentially* better. We're running into big compute bottlenecks, with rising downtime and degrading performance, which is your point, but harnessing that isn't something raw inference (smarter AIs) can do. "AGI" (whatever that is) can't build itself a data center.

Open ##2925488