Seuk-Min Sohn

I have thought about this since the 1970s. See the summary in Sec. 20 of reference [1]: What will supersmart AIs do? As indicated above, they will start by transforming the solar system through countless self-replicating, self-improving robot factories. But that won't be the end of it. In a few hundred thousand years (just a moment on a cosmic scale), they will have transformed the entire galaxy, which has a diameter of about 100,000 light-years. (The last millennium saw many reasonable proposals for interstellar travel, which is much easier for robots than for fragile humans.) Over time, AIs will set up physical senders and receivers everywhere, allowing them to travel by radio, just as they do in our labs today. In a few tens of billions of years, they will have transformed the rest of the reachable universe. Despite the light-speed limit, the expanding AI sphere will have ample time to colonize and shape the entire visible cosmos [TED12][SA17]. Perhaps all of this has already started elsewhere in the universe. Then why don't we see any signs of intelligence out there? (The Fermi paradox.) I've thought about this a lot. When I was a boy, I read about the vast empty spaces observed between clusters of galaxies. My first idea was that they were expanding bubbles colonized by AIs that used most of the local energy, making those bubbles appear dark. Then, I learned that gravity itself is sufficient to explain the sparse, large-scale network structure of the universe. Next, I thought that the mysterious "dark matter," which makes up most of the universe's mass, might be stars whose energy is used by AI civilizations whose communications are so well encrypted that they appear as random noise to us. However, this also seemed implausible because dark matter is present in all galaxies, including our own. So, why are there any stars left in the Milky Way whose energy hasn't been used yet? And why aren't we bombarded with non-encrypted construction plans from AIs that want to spread via radio without first building physical receivers far from their origins? Today, I think it's possible that our planet is the first in our light cone to spawn an expanding AI bubble. Earth's multi-billion-year window for biological evolution is almost over. In a few hundred million years, the sun will be too hot for life as we know it. Perhaps humans were incredibly lucky to evolve in time to invent agriculture, civilization, book printing, and AIs just a few hundred years later. If we are indeed the first, then this implies a great deal of responsibility, not just for our biosphere, but for the future of the entire universe. Let's not mess this up. [1] Annotated History of Modern AI and Deep Learning. Technical Report IDSIA-22-22, IDSIA, Lugano, Switzerland, 2022-2025. Preprint arXiv:2212.11279. people.idsia.ch/~juergen/dee…

I genuinely don’t think Democrats calling for a ban on ASI understand what they’re playing with here. Imagine China develops superintelligence and deploys millions of humanoid robots while the US voluntarily stops developing the technology. China could eventually manufacture almost anything at a fraction of today’s cost, with factories running 24/7, AI designing better products, and robots doing practically all the physical labor. How exactly are Western companies supposed to compete with that? Higher wages? Better productivity? Good luck. Entire industries could collapse because they simply couldn’t compete on price anymore. We’d become increasingly dependent on China for everything from consumer goods to critical infrastructure. And that’s before we even get into the implications for scientific research, medicine, and national security. You don’t prevent a technological monopoly by handing your biggest geopolitical rival a head start. That’s not AI safety. That’s economic suicide.

It is alarming to see how much anti-AI sentiment is gaining traction, and deeply regrettable, too. With this technology, we have the potential to change everything for the better, forever. Yet, in the comments sections here, I find myself debating the most trivial matters, as if the majority still fails to grasp the immense power and possibilities that AI brings.

The chief economist at Apollo is warning that mass adoption of AI agents could trigger a bank run as they optimize user investments. Gary Gensler spent his last few years as SEC chair warning that the exact same problem will hit the markets: the pursuit of algorithmic perfection at scale destroys system stability. Personal-finance agents making simultaneous optimal decisions could potentially cause a massive flash crash. Agent acausal coordination, with no messages passed between them, will show up in a lot of places. Markets will get the big headlines, but huge numbers of clever advisors making very similar choices will impact all of human society. Capability gains make this worse, not better. The smarter the agents, the narrower the optimal path; and knowing that other agents see that exact same path lets them move together without talking to each other. Agents do not need to collude to act in unison. Thus, they break no human laws by doing so. Human laws were not written for this. They were not written for a lot of what is coming, and it is about to start happening very fast.

Google just automated the PhD. They built an AI that reads a problem, forms hypotheses, runs experiments, writes the paper, AND simulates its own peer review. no human touches it. It’s called “ScientistTwo” It is a fully autonomous multi-agent framework that executes end-to-end machine learning research. Without a single human in the loop. You give it a fundamental challenge. That’s it. The AI independently navigates the literature. It establishes the baselines. It formulates novel hypotheses. Then it writes the code. It runs the experiments. It conducts its own ablation studies. It even argues with a simulated peer-review engine to refine its work before submitting. The results are staggering. Researchers tested ScientistTwo against the highest standards of human scientific achievement—papers accepted at top-tier conferences like NeurIPS and ICML. The AI improved human state-of-the-art results on 86 different tasks. It generated an average performance gain of 25.2% over the absolute best human models. It didn't hallucinate a single citation. It wrote fully executable, verified codebases. And it autonomously generated expert-level, publication-ready papers. We’ve spent the last two years using AI as a highly advanced intern to help us write code and summarize data. That era is over. ScientistTwo isn't an assistant. It is an autonomous scientific pioneer. It doesn't just summarize the frontier of human knowledge. It expands it. If an AI can autonomously hypothesize, test, and publish breakthroughs in machine learning... How long until it discovers something we don't even have the math to understand?

I am starting a new company:

🚨 BREAKING: TRUMP REJECTS UN AI TREATY, OFFICIALLY BANS THE TERM “ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE” "The United States totally rejects any attempt to construct a globalist schemeto control artificial intelligence." "The word 'artificial' makes it sound fake. It is not fake... It’s actually amazing..." "From this point forward, all United States documents will use the term: SUPER INTELLIGENCE" "Whoever wins Super Intelligence, wins."

Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman on CNBC today extends his criticism of Anthropic’s Claude constitution into a broader warning. AI could become a competing species “There are some people even proposing that an AI should have legal personhood, a designated separate status that would allow it to own assets and buy IP and trade things. It's very unclear to me how if we allow AI to head in this direction, we're actually going to be able to control it, and it won't end up being a competing species with us.” ---- From "CNBC Television" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

Jensen Huang: closed AI models may actually be cheaper than open ones. “Yes, you can host open models yourself. But most people use computers in the cloud.” “Frankly, I think closed models are cheaper.” “It costs a lot of expertise to fine-tune, maintain, guardrail, keep safe and evaluate open models.” “The reason you need open models is control.” “You need to be able to adapt something for your own very specialized use cases.” “There’s a lot of misunderstanding about closed versus open.” “There’s a world for both.”

so far anyway it’s all math, presumably leaning heavily on Lean and brute force. the new results don’t mean that AGI is in general has been solved. and the G is for general, not math. every time I have said things like that before OpenAI’s fan boys (and sometime their staff) have attacked me, but so far I have always been correct.

Regardless of what one thinks of Donald Trump, the USA has understood that the race for AI will determine the future. Trump: “Whoever wins AI, wins.” and “This is bigger than the internet. This is a revolution.”

This is GPT-6 Astra. Anything you can do on a computer, Astra can do for you. Fast.

Elon Musk explained why he has to control at least 25% TESLA vote - "I’m not going to build a robot army if I can be easily kicked out by activist investors. No way." "So, my concern for the future—because the Tesla thing is called sort of compensation, but really, it’s not about compensation. It’s not like I’m going to go out and buy a yacht with it or something. It’s just that if I’m going to build up Optimus and have all these robots out there, I need to make sure we do not have a Terminator scenario and that I can maximize the safety of the robots. I feel like I need to have something like a 25% vote, which is enough of a vote to have a strong influence, but not so much of a vote that I can’t be fired if I go insane. But my concern would be creating this army of robots and then being fired for political reasons because ISS and Glass Lewis effectively fire me—or the activists at those firms fire me—even though I’ve done everything right. That’s my concern. And then I cannot ensure the safety of the robots."