this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
32 points (88.1% liked)

Asklemmy

51368 readers
582 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Look, I don't believe that an AGI is possible or atleast within the next few decade. But I was thinking about, if one came to be, how can we differentiate it from a Large Language Model (LLM) that has read every book ever written by humans?

Such an LLM would have the "knowledge" of almost every human emotions, morals, and can even infer from the past if the situations are slightly changed. Also such LLM would be backed by pretty powerful infrastructure, so hallucinations might be eliminated and can handle different context at a single time.

One might say, it also has to have emotions to be considered an AGI and that's a valid one. But an LLM is capable of putting on a facade at-least in a conversation. So we might have to hard time reading if the emotions are genuine or just some texts churned out by some rules and algorithms.

In a pure TEXTUAL context, I feel it would be hard to tell them apart. What are your thoughts on this? BTW this is a shower-thought, so I might be wrong.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

An LLM trained on all books ever written would probably take romance novels, books by flat earthers, or even "Atlas Shrugged" as truth as much as current AIs consider all stack overflow comments to contain useful and accurate information.

Thinking about it, your questions comes back to the very first and original instance of a computer and the question interested people asked about it:

If you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answer come out?

Now if we allow ourselves the illusion of assuming that an AGI could exist, and that it can actually learn by itself in a similar way as humans, than just that quote above leads us to these two truths:

  • LLMs cannot help being stupid, they just do not know any better.
  • AGIs will probably be idiots, just like the humans asking the above question, but there is at least a chance that they will not.