mjg2

Is it an "econ paper?" I'm sorry for the continued contrarian route here but I ask it in earnest. Are we compromising our standards of economic papers to fit the fad?

Like how I gestured in my top-level comment, are we being an economic analysis or seeming an economic analysis. I regard the efforts of Frontier Labs with suspicion because a lot of their marketing efforts around "Artificial Intelligence" appear (to me) as acquisitive and power hungry to a fault: they are all consuming in that every author on this paper has a superscript 1 to denote association with OpenAI.

When I say “how” I mean like how u/glouwbug mentioned: Formatting. But more so Structure.

When I read artifacts by Frontier Labs I notice a trend towards deteriorating lexicographic architecture. Like how a textbook or larger tomb is constructed for the reader to navigate.

Instead, now I see continuous monotonic text. It’s as if the author expects us to chuck the artifact into an LLM in order for it to inform us of meaning.

Would it kill these OpenAI guys to learn how to write a white paper? Google's DeepMind did better with their AGI to ASI, though I have qualms on their execution.

Whenever I see these Frontier Labs "publish a paper" on ArXiv.org the phrase Esse Quam Videri strides past my mind—is this genuine progress or merely a marketing metric for their stakeholders?

Seriously, what's hope is left for adults when a 5 year old understands signed Nostr events? The ELI-SWE is the docs I guess? I want to get off the Silicon Valley marketing express.

I don't understand why people cast skepticism or not-devotion as "hatred." There's a whole spectrum for opinions to fall on; I don't care for sports but that doesn't mean I hate baseball.

Thanks for sharing this. It appears your README.md's first paragraph is truncated. It ends with "Carmack which reportedly contains..." What were you intending to say next?

To the author's credit, there's a disclosure that the article is a teaser for deep dive for paid-subscribers only. That's probably why it's light on details.

Ah I see now that I am in agreement with you, thank you for being a patient interlocutor. I do not discard and rule out the possibility of a different substrate being the well-spring from which sentience emerges.

Plainly, based on the current ground trodded and the trajectory laid out by the frontier AI labs, I do not have concrete evidence/proof of sentience having emerged from LLM-based software tools as of June 4 2026 nor do I expect it to happen in the future based on my understanding and observations of this technology. I'm not excluding the possibility but wielding skepticism. I am open to being proven wrong with new discoveries.

Which is why (to return to my lashing of the dead horse) I don't see OP's post as worthwhile. Their post reiterates a point that is already valid (the prior art) with no new substantial discovery. Which is why "unoriginal and pointless" is apt, a novel idea was not presented; it's just some vain virtue signaling.

Roger that, thank you. w/r/g your recapitulation of my point: yes, the story is unoriginal and pointless, and the HN community seems to eat it up-- isn't that odd.

So I still disagree with your elucidated point (as you end with "which is valid"): the OP author is using prior art fiction to bolster their opinion of LLM-based software tools as being a possible vector of sentience, not to disarm our chauvinism like the original author intended. If OP wanted to make that point, they could have written a critical essay instead of farming out their thoughts as tokens.

But still, I look forward to reading the book you suggested to understand and appreciate your perspective more.

I cannot tell if you are asserting my comment is chauvinistic with your use of "we." If that is so: that's a poor counter to my point or assessment of my stance because it assumes I'm making a baseless argument as a "proud human."

My original comment (roughly "there's no intelligence in this article, nor sentience in LLMs") is in response to the blog post's buried lede (that the cumulative activity of LLMs has accrued to a weight of "AGI is around the corner" or "there is artificial consciousness in this matrix").

To be clear, I'm not saying LLMs are useless or a wrong direction in development of "AI," but rather it's the Fool's Gold for the path towards AGI, the pursuit of the academic field of Artificial Intelligence research. A research that I've been abreast of for years before this new age of language models that has made everyone with a keyboard an arm chair expert.

Also, thank you for the book recommendation, it's on my list! :)

lol Dude I should be the one verifying your age with this response. I don’t hate Elon, I am wary of his track record and I don’t use X. I drove a Tesla back in 2012, and it’s been a marked downgrade ever since.

I’m not going to keep engaging with someone who makes wild assumptions about my stance and accuses me of lying, ignorance, and evil. I was really hoping for video proof; I know Elon is the type of guy to hold that high with all that SpaceX footage.

Good day sir :)

Sure they have improved but how do we define success? Is success "It can drive a road it has never been on?" Even then I'm not sure because the model (not the physical car) has probably scanned that road before so it is recalling a prior route while being aware of hazards. Is that learning, or rote memorization?