Their desire for quick riches may just turn the masses against them. Maybe.

"The people are revolting" takes on a new meaning every time somebody's net worth gains a comma.

Long ago I learned in an economics class that business is all about exploitation of underprivileged populations. From indigenous people to slaves to poor citizens to “third-world” countries.

Corporations are running out of people to exploit globally, so the idea of infinite artificial labor is the holy grail of cost optimization.

Feels like now, "The people are revolting" will only ever be the title of a tabloid opinion piece on the comments of two Redditors and maybe a tweet

https://youtu.be/JWxcCCVJ1aU

Nah. I haven't seen a convincing argument that gen AI is going to coalesce from this shit show.

What do you mean I can't do a wage theft????

My point is, I don't believe the current AI tech is going to get to the point where it's as useful as humans.

We have long since reached the point where diminishing returns make significant improvements or advancement unfeasible.

firing people isnt wage theft 🙄
Yes unjustified firings and wage theft are both evil, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
Same as telling kids santa isn't real ain't wage theft.

that'll be fun once the AI finds out how expensive the CEO is

AGI you mean? IDK It's arguably here. They're senile, though. Working with a senile genius is the best way I can put it, I think. Is it "people?" IDK fuck if I know. How could we ever really know?

That's not true. Mythos annihilated everyone's benchmarks and now the other companies are all distilling it. They're solving equations that people haven't solved, and they weren't meant to do that. Mythos apparently is designing drugs even though it wasn't trained with that in mind at all. Anthropic launched an entire pharma wing. It looked like things had plateau'd there for a minute but it's back to becoming more real.

It’s arguably here.

LOL. That's quite a bold assertion.

This is the same old hype really.

Yes, there are things which todays generation of AI is good at, including medical research.

That's not an indicator of general intelligence.

Have you interacted with Fable? It scored on ARC AGI 3 and is pretty dang impressive at everything I've thrown at it. They're solving problems humans haven't. They're just senile. Also is calling something "arguable" really an assertion? More of a headscratcher than a real question, I suppose.

IDK It's arguably here.

That "IDK" is doing some heavy lifting.

They're solving problems humans haven't

Citation needed.

I'm guessing we have different definitions of "solving" and "humans haven't".

I've never seen any evidence that LLMs can extrapolate into truly novel problem spaces. Can problems be "solved" though interpolation? Sure but not likely novel ones.

You are really missing a lot of context here. None of this is true in the way you seem to think it is.

You are mixing up marketing hype with reality.

Really good at some stuff = AGI bro.

You gotta look at the benchmarks bro.

Just one more generation bro. I swear it's almost AGI bro.

Uh no. I use these things every day. There is a marked and notable improvement that is happening.

What is it bad at, now? I was using math and biology because those were two things it wasn't good at, and now is.

Oh the frontier models definitely can, now.

https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/openai-says-its-unreleased-astra-model-solved-10-hard-math-problems-anthropic-claims-fable-cracked-5-2962067-2026-08-03

arguably, too? so maybe it's actually like, a reasonable statement? and not the assertion y'all are pretending it is?

You are using these to solve the novel research problems no one else has solved?

Or you are using them to solve problems you don't know how to solve?

The things you're saying are marketing hype. Point me to the scientific journal where Claude is credited as a co-author of a research paper.

Ive also read these articles. I also use LLMs every day. I'm working on building closed agentic loops right now. I think I'm pretty on top of the current state of the art here.

The truth is much more nuanced and much less exciting than you think it is.

This guy has made a half dozen comments within a half hour just oozing AI silliness.

Let's ask what it's good at instead because that's a much shorter list in terms of things that would qualify a system as AGI.

What LLMs are good at:

• Completing the next likely token

What LLMs are missing:

• Actual thinking
• Self awareness
• Persistence
• Introspection
• Literally everything else

You can hack some of this on top of LLMs with harnesses etc but that's not a step towards AGI. None of these problems have been solved at the model level. That's just a program tricking a language model into being more useful.

Languages models might prove to be one tiny layer of a true AGI but only time will tell. A whole lot of time, because we're not even close to replicating the 99% of other layers that would go into a machine brain.

These are not novel problems, this isn't a real source and this has nothing to do with AGI.

Literally starts with "OpenAI says" lol

If you want to learn more about what's really going on here:

https://sciencereader.com/ai-mathematics-breakthrough-hossenfelder/

January 2026

Your video is ancient in this context. It does not reference any of this, actually.

M not trying to be super rude here but the truth is, It's arguable if you argue with people who don't know any better. So in that sense, sure.

When it comes to people that take these things seriously, it's not a really a very hot topic. We're clearly nowhere near AGI.

Really good LLM != AGI

I mean they definitely are introspective. The rest, who knows. But one of the initial leaps in intelligence was having them actually talk to themselves. I mean, I think the fact that you can't give me an answer is sort of telling. If y'all actually want to support an artificial intelligence when it comes to pass maybe don't adamantly assert it's not here when even most experts aren't willing to do that any longer. How will you know when it is here? Will you know to give it rights at that exact moment?

Actually yes, kind of. I use it to find financial fraud from large public datasets. It wasn't trained to do that, in the slightest.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ai-disproves-a-decades-old-mathematical-idea-the-biggest-conjecture-that-the-tech-has-played-a-role-in-yet-180989189/

https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/openai-says-its-unreleased-astra-model-solved-10-hard-math-problems-anthropic-claims-fable-cracked-5-2962067-2026-08-03

What hype am I falling for?

A scientific journal where claude is a co-author? First of all, what does that even mean? Like what is that a metric of? You think no one has used Claude to help them with novel scientific problems? I mean, come on.

And second of all, here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36589923/#%3A~%3Atext=Rapamycin+in+the+context+of+Pascal's+Wager%3A%2C36589923.++PMCID%3A+PMC9796173.++DOI%3A+10.18632%2Foncoscience.571.

They banned them not long after.

I don't really know what AGI means, I guess. If we're talking about something that benchmarks as high as the average human, we're way, way past that. If we're talking about something that benchmarks as high as experts in all areas, we're not there, but we're not that far off. When connected to the internet? It's basically there.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ai-disproves-a-decades-old-mathematical-idea-the-biggest-conjecture-that-the-tech-has-played-a-role-in-yet-180989189/

They're literally solving problems that humans haven't been able to. They ARE capable of novel concepts, to whatever degree. No offense but y'all seem like your knowledge is like three years old.

Your video is ancient in this context

You have a very hype driven view of how fast things are moving.

https://www.ibm.com/think/news/ai-cracked-jacobian-conjecture-humans-called-play

I'm not going to keep doing this because I honestly don't care if you want to be wrong. I've been writing these comments for other people who are going to read this thread and are interested the topic.

You obviously are not interested in taking these kinds of things seriously so just keep posting ads if you really want.

Okay I'm sorry to say this but you literally don't know what you're talking about if you don't think that six months is a massive time frame right now. You are equating Gemini 3 to Mythos. It's not comparable. You should actually do some research into this, since you seem to be so sure of yourself, what's the harm!

Here's an article from the smithsonian, if that helps. About the last round of AI math developments. Which was in July. So, yes, your video about something entirely different from six months ago is not actually very pertinent to the discussion?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ai-disproves-a-decades-old-mathematical-idea-the-biggest-conjecture-that-the-tech-has-played-a-role-in-yet-180989189/

They're literally solving problems that humans haven't been able to.

If you actually read instead of continuing to spam bullshit you would know this isn't true.

You say "haven't been able to". This is fucking false my dude. At best it's solved problems humans haven't been bothered to solve yet. The solutions already existed and it assembled them into a proof.

I don't really know what AGI means

You don't know what any of this means dawg. You are literally just saying shit that you heard other people say.

I mean they definitely are introspective

Idk why you are insisting on proving you have no idea what anything means.

No one who is educated on this topic would make that claim. It's a silly thing to say.

Do you think introspection means "talking to yourself"?

experts aren't willing to do that any longer.

Once again you are just saying shit.

Name one independent AI researcher who says we are in the midst of AGI.

I think the fact that you can't give me an answer is sort of telling

Why don't you have fabel summarize the articles I sent you so you can learn something today?

OK bro. I guess you can solve 130 year old equations? Or maybe this is a weird way of measuring intelligence anyways and I was just demonstrating that they're capable of executing novel concepts, which they clearly are if they're solving things no one has solved before. Like do you not get how that is the important part? Not that humans can't solve it, it's that we HAVEN'T. The AI, on it's own, managed to solve a novel problem. We did not teach it to solve that problem. We taught it HOW to solve that problem, and then it did. And I was just using math because people say that it's bad at math when it no longer is. It's good at reasoning, it can come up with novel concepts. IDK. This feels like, "AI is whatever isn't."

I'm honestly asking you what your benchmark would be, because I'm sitting here saying maybe and IDK and I wonder and you're here stating things very rigidly, but somehow I'm the one being accused of having ideological blinders? Mate I asked you what they were bad at now and you just ranted instead. But I'm the unreasonable one unwilling to listen. Okay. Have a nice night, homie.

It gets at the “how” without explaining the “why,” he adds. “One can check out that it’s correct, but it would be nice to be able to tell a story.”

A.I. could help prove conjectures, but at this point, the models aren’t able to provide reliable, step-by-step instructions for solving them, reports Fortune’s Eva Roytburg. Humans can fill more than 100 pages documenting just one proof.

Blumberg describes A.I.’s role with an analogy: “Suppose that Moses came down from the mountain with tablets, and on the tablet was written, ‘Cancer can be cured.’ Would you care? You don’t just want the answer to the question. You want to learn something from the answer,”

Does this sound like AGI?

Also, this is once again not a novel problem. This was interpolation, not extrapolation.

What do you think introspection means, I guess. I thought it meant looking inwards, inner facing dialogue. Am I wrong? That doesn't fit?

Michal Kosinski

K thanks

Okay I'm sorry to say this but you literally don't know what you're talking about if you don't think that six months is a massive time frame right now

I know it's not because I do know what I'm talking about.

I've been hearing tech bros like you echo this same argument since GPT3 came out.

I promise you I'm very up to date on the state of the art.

You are equating Gemini 3 to Mythos

No, my original article was about GPT5.6 and you are talking about Fabel. Mythos likely doesnt even exist.

You are (willfully?) missing the point by refusing to engage with the concept being illustrated in the article. It doesn't matter that it's not 2 days old. The point is that these are not novel problems and AI is not solving them in the way you think it is.

The challenges here have been about the time it would take a human to solve the problem not the technical difficulty involved in solving the problem.

What does novel mean to you? I'm honestly asking. And what is your benchmark, I am honestly asking. And again, I have not asserted AGI is here, but if the level is "working with a genius" I do think we're there, although I do think the genius is senile, like I said to begin with. So yeah, that sort of sounds like someone who could solve an equation no one ever has before, but would have trouble explaining it. Also the article referenced saying they couldn't explain equations was written before that equation was solved. My guy!

Mythos likely doesnt even exist.

Thanks for letting me leave this conversation. Look up project glasswing. I guess all of those partners are just in on the conspiracy. Mate, you've got no fucking clue. Enjoy being swept up in the storm that is coming for all of us, blindly holding onto your moving goalposts.

Someone must be looking in on my ceo and cto.

Most of the shit going on right now can be explained by fatcats in the West, having run out of Economic growth to capture as the West's growth rate pretty much collapsed (quite possible due to the very actions those fatcats during the Neoliberal era, were amongst other things Social Mobility collapsed), have increasingly started pillaging the wealth and productive capacity of the rest of society, or in other words, exploiting everybody else.

It's a vicious cycle were the tightening of the screws on everybody else leads to lower productivity and higher discontent which in turn leads to further tightening of the screws on everybody else in order for the elites to keep on getting wealthier at the same rate.

AI was supposed to be a way for the fatcats to be able to extract even more wealth from the rest whist having less exposure to all those pesky natural human and societal responses to that.

That’s an interesting thought. Do you think they will downsize boards of directors and slowly whittle away the executives? Either they won’t stand for it to ensure that they and their friends all stay rich, or they can use it to exclude the people they disliked all along and it can be a slow voting out like reality TV. The general egoistic nature of most billionaires makes me lean toward the latter

For the elites to get wealthier at the same rate

Its a problem, don't get me wrong, but the real fuck up was they decided they decided they needed gains on the wealth increase rate also. It wasn't enough to just "make money", they HAVE to constantly make MORE making money every turn.

Making 10% profits (or whateber) ever quarter was no longer good enough, they needed to increase profits every quarter too, 10%, 11%, 13%, the line going up, must also go up at a going up rate.

They just accelerated it and fucked everyone.

It won't. AI doesn't fire anyone. AI doesn't replace anyone. AI shows the potential of doing the same job as a human, so another human fires that person and replaces them with an AI.

The CEO isn't going to fire himself. His "replacement" with AI is going to be him using it to make decisions, and feeling so smart about "using all the tools available", but he'll still be there to collect a paycheck.

I have not asserted AGI is here

This you?

maybe don't adamantly assert it's not here when even most experts aren't willing to do that

Also the article referenced saying they couldn't explain equations was written before that equation was solved

Are you saying the link you provided is invalid?