LLMs are too stupid to be useful for professional work, but that won’t stop content creators from shooting themselves in the foot with it.

Genetic engineering is important, necessary scientific work. But, claiming that you can reverse extinction is not only demonstrably wrong, it’s dangerous.

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.

According to a fresh preprint from Xinghong Fu, Ziming Liu, and Max Tegmark over at MIT’s Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Interactions, when formulating initial theories, AI agents trained to conduct research tend to gravitate toward Hamiltonian mechanics. 

OpenAI says 500 million people use ChatGPT. And, even though it’s exactly as smart as a toaster, everyone seems to think it’s the cat’s meow.

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. 

And more money and more money and more money…

A team of researchers from Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence at the Renmin University of China, with support from the Alibaba Group, published a preprint on Monday, March 31, that seems to indicate the impossible: algorithms can think.

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

In two new papers, Anthropic describes a new methodology by which developers are attempting to peek under the models’ hoods to discern exactly what’s occurring inside.

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.

A team of researchers at Australian Catholic University, with support from the National Key R&D Program of China, have unveiled a vision-based driverless vehicle technology framework that they claim can replace LiDAR.

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.