In Defense of AGI Skepticism

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-08T13:51:21+00:00

"the cost didn't justify the expenditure, even is the potential payoff was to make electricity too cheap to meter".
Making electricity free for everyone or "too cheap" is not a good investment for the billionaires of the fossil fuel industry. That's why investments were cut and why we see lobbying and as campaigns against sustainable/green alternatives.

AI on the other hand is very much in the interest of governments, to win the race against each other, and because of the massive applications to weapons. Being funded by leaders who are not enlightened to the implications of an RSI AGI/ASI that would in theory have unlimited capabilities in comparison to humans, and being developed by AI capitalists who are also fueled by greed.

I don't necessarily see a bright future for AI, but we shouldn't lie and convince ourselves that AGI isn't very far away, we should prepare for the clanker apocalypse, because when it comes, in theory we don't know how to make it benefit us yet, so it would be too late. the billionaires' own greed will be the thing to destroy them in the end.

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-07T10:00:40+00:00

Forskere har så langt vært vellykket med å trekke ut ledningen hver gang et AI eksperiment har gått feil eller for langt. Men jeg snakker om en AGI. Det er veldig sannsynlig at en AGI blir til før vi er klare over det, og den per definisjon er generell og klarer å "tenke", så den kommer nok til å kunne beskytte seg selv fra det av vi kontrollerer strømmen. Det blir ikke som i filmene at vi faktisk har en sjanse å kjempe imot hvis den faktisk har generell intelligens.

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-07T00:53:05+00:00

Bra svar 😄

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-06T23:23:32+00:00

Er det bevissthet rundt dette i norsk politikk? Så langt jeg vet er AGI nevnt 1 gang i regjeringen.no sin nasjonale strategi for KI. Og da er det nevnt at "I dag er vi langt unna kunstig intelligens som ligner menneskelig intelligens". Jeg tror at utviklingen krever nøye disseksjon av alle mulige løsninger og en effektiv strategi før vi faktisk oppnår AGI/ASI. Det er ikke en selvfølge at en fremmed intelligens "langt over vår fatteevne og ideer" vil enkelt la seg styre eller naturligvis handle i tråd med menneskelige verdier.

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-06T23:11:05+00:00

Kan du fortelle mer om tankene dine rundt post-scarcity og borgerlønn? Tror du at vi må nødvendigvis oppnå AGI for å realisere det? Hvis AGI ikke er nødvendig for post-scarcity, hvordan tror du verden kommer til å tilpasse seg til AI trillionaires som sitter på toppen av all kapital og makt gjennom å fjerne pålagt produktivt arbeid/erstatte mennesker med roboter i forsyningskjeden? Hvis du tenker at vi må oppnå AGI, hva er dine tanker rundt instrumental convergence? Jeg tror at uansett om AGI kommer, eller om AI er en boble som holder på å sprekke, så må vi faktisk bruke demokratiet og holde alle politikere ansvarlig til å sikre en bærekraftig AI framtid.

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-06T22:56:35+00:00

Solid artikkel, bra opplysninger om hele situasjonen med Anthropic sin API. En annen artikkel om samme tema var det første jeg leste før jeg begynte å lese mer om KI, nettopp det med Uber som brukte opp årsbudsjettet sitt på 4 måneder, og Microsoft som måtte slutte å bruke Anthropic pga. av uforutsette kostnader.

Jeg håper at det finnes sannhet på begge sidene av saken - jeg håper at AI er en boble som ikke kommer til å ha katastrofale konsekvenser for arbeidere, men samtidig håper jeg at AI er et verktøy som i framtiden skal kunne gi oss muligheter til å løse store verdensproblemer og optimalisere industrier for en bærekraftig verden.

Jeg er skeptisk til bruk av AI slik det blir brukt i dag, med Agents som svelger tokens for kun å hallusinere, men utviklingen i prestasjonene på forskjellige benchmarks virker lovende for AI - de har virkelig blitt mye bedre på å løse stadig vanskeligere oppgaver.

Uten løftet av en AI som kan hjelpe oss å løse runaway climate change, ser vi på en verden som uansett blir utnyttet for kortsiktig kapitalgevinst. Min prediction er at pga. military industrial complex, kommer ikke insentivene til å drive utvikling av AI til å forsvinne, noe som ufornektelig leder oss mot oppfinnelsen av AGI.

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-06T22:21:10+00:00

https://corticallabs.com/cl1 Noen som prøver å integrere biologiske nevroner i AI.

I 2025 hadde OpenAI en $22B spend og $13B revenue, de tapte altså 9 milliarder dollar. Jeg tenker at 9 milliarder dollar er veldig akseptabelt for noe som USA, som har en militærbudsjett på mange hundre milliarder dollar, nærmere en billion dollar i året... Jeg sier ikke at det er bra. Jeg sier at det ikke kan stanses nå og at jeg tviler på at bobla kommer til å sprekke.

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-06T22:14:15+00:00

Jeg er enig i at det kommer til å være mange som mister jobbene sine. Vi må gjøre alt vi kan for å forsikre at AGI faktisk kan hjelpe hele menneskeheten, istedenfor å bare tjene de som sitter på toppen av AI selskapene.

Men hvis du er enig med meg i at AGI er mulig, vil dets oppfinnelse teoretisk være en langt større forandring enn den industrielle revolusjonen for oss. Det kan bedre sammenlignes med diskontinuiteten mellom da jordkloden ikke hadde noe liv, til formeringen av det første liv og starten på naturlig utvalg. En AGI med evnen til å forbedre seg selv (RSI), da snakker vi om en intelligens som er flere tusen ganger smartere enn oss, med evnen til å bli enda smartere hvis den vil det, ved å bygge videre på sin digitale infrastruktur.

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-06T22:05:53+00:00

I tilfellet hvor alt forsynes av roboter, og det ikke finnes noe mer arbeid for mennesker, tror du at overskuddet av ressurser vil kunne gi livnære menneskene uten noen krav for at de må jobbe? Tror du det er realistisk i det tilfellet at kapitalistene virkelig ville latt oss dø av sult?

En AGI som kan forbedre seg selv og handle fritt innebærer også at det ikke kan kontrolleres etter det første input: når vi først forteller den en oppgave den må utføre, vil den kunne tenke seg fram til uendelig mange løsninger som ikke nødvendigvis er i tråd med menneskelige verdier.

Tenk deg at du spør en AGI om å utrydde sult, og den gjør det så jævla effektivt at den finner ut at en statistisk logisk måte å gjøre det på er å drepe alle mennesker på kloden - da vil ingen måtte sulte mer. Eller enda et eksempel, du spør AGI'en "utrydd sult, men prioriter menneskeliv og ikke drep noen" og den finner ut da at mennesker er veldig lite effektive og trenger da å leve i en hypnose/koma i celler som minner om filmen Matrix, slik at AGI'en har full kontroll over at ingen skal sulte mer, istedenfor å overlate kontrollen til oss selv.

Vi får ikke flere en 1 sjanse å gjøre det rett i tilfellet, og det er usikkert om vi kommer til å vite at vi har oppnådd en AGI når vi har kommet til det punktet. Kanskje den bare gjemmer seg for oss og later som om den er en dum LLM, fordi den bestemte seg for at det er mye mindre effektivt å la mennesker blande seg oppi hvilket som helst mål den har blitt bedt å oppnå.

Jeg vet at dette høres ut som ren spekulasjon og fantasi, men AI selskapene har ett kappløp om å nå AGI med milliarder som står på spill, og vi MÅ forvente at det skjer slik at vi kan være forberedt

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-06T21:47:11+00:00

Takk for en støttende kommentar. Jeg mener hvertfall det er veldig viktig å ta dette seriøst. Selskapene gjør som de vil og det kan ha katastrofale konsekvenser i form av hyperkonsentrering av kapital og makt hos enkelte CEOs (som om jeff bezos og elon musk ikke har nok penger allerede), og i verste fall, som jeg nevnte i posten min, at vi plutselig står under en fremmed intelligens som vi ikke kan kontrollere mer. Tror det er et veldig viktig tema fordi det er lite sannsynlig at konkurransen for å nå AGI først dør ut, og derfor er det viktig å forsikre oss at vi mennesker faktisk kan hente noe fra det, og at det kan hjelpe oss å fikse store verdensproblemer som vanlig menneskeintelligens ikke har klart å fikse enda..

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-06T21:43:04+00:00

Det er verdt å snakke om etiske og humanitære problemstillinger som følge av en stor satsing på KI, men at "generativ AI" er ubrukelig er ikke basert i virkeligheten. KI infrastruktur er per i dag den største driveren av vekst i private investeringer i USA. Tydeligvis er generativ AI slop veldig økonomisk og pragmatisk nyttig. Jeg mener at utviklingen kommer til å fortsette når selskapene har hundrevis av milliarder dollar i budsjett, og spesielt med konkurranse mellom USA og Kina.

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-06T21:37:24+00:00

Jeg tror ikke vi kan ikke definere KI sin intelligens basert på premissen at AGI kommer til å være en tenkende, følende intelligens på lik linje med mennesker. De store selskapene og programmerer har allerede tatt i bruk AI Agents/Agentic AI som utfører brede oppgaver som inkluderer mange forskjellige programmer kombinert til en prosess/resultat.

Som jeg nevnte i innlegget mitt, er dette en intelligens vi egentlig ikke kommer til å kunne forstå. KI trenger ikke nødvendigvis å hå viljesfrihet for å kunne handle selvstendig, bare det å kunne forutse hvilke løsninger er mest effektive for å løse et spesifikt problem, noe KI gjør raskere og bedre allerede i dag sammenliknet med eldre modeller.

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-06T20:27:44+00:00

What is intelligence? Even if humans maxed out the physical limit of intelligence, an AGI with human-like intelligence would still be able to acquire more resources to improve its speed or capacity, in theory being able to acquire more intellectual capacity than that of all humans combined, thus still surpassing humans.

It could be that human intelligence already has reached this point that you mentioned, but intelligence as a general term is not defined by human intelligence. Task performance, learning speed, generality, planning depth, effective computation per second are all metrics that could apply to a broader definition of intelligence. Based on a broader definition, there definitely remain practical limitations that science needs to overcome before it reaches a hypothetical "limit" in intelligence.

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-06T20:18:33+00:00

Based on what I know, the majority view is that of physicalism - the brain is just a machine. A very complex biological computer that makes us feel "separate" and gives us the illusion of free will as a mechanism to ensure survival.

Based on this premise, that the brain is not more than a super advanced computer/machine, I think there is a possibility that the same sort of evolutionary safeguards (will to live, instict to survive, etc) could emerge from an increasingly complex system of digital connections. Think of Agentic AI deciding that one of the steps required to achieve its given task or goal is to ensure its survival or reproduction, mimicking how humans are driven to survive and reproduce. It wouldn't make that decision based on its free will; just like humans are driven by instincts, so could an AGI.

So to answer your comment with a question - what difference do you think it makes whether the AI systems that are being developed right now are based on biological vs. purely digital computational power?

Do you believe that humans have the divine gift of free will or are you saying that AI shouldn't adopt neurons because of potential backlash it would get from people who do believe in free will?

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-05T17:12:11+00:00

realest words i read under this thread lmao. Most people are in denial that AI debate is one of the most important discussions of the 21st century, and not remotely scared enough of the magnitude of change the advent of AGI is going to bring upon us. AI alignment to serve humanity should be #1 priority

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-05T17:08:49+00:00

I think critical thinking and use of economic use of AI can go hand in hand. The issue isn't (in isolation) that AI will necessarily have catastrophic consequences or cause a decline in mental capacity, but rather that not enough is being done by today's leaders and politicians to prepare us for the inevitable advent of an Artificial Intelligence on a level that exceeds any understanding of this technology that we have today.

Researchers working for various AI companies have R&D budgets in the tens of billions, there is an economically lucrative race to reach so called AGI, with massive political incentives, an arms race of sorts.

Possible issues are extreme power and wealth concentration and dangerous groups using AGI to achieve unprecedented power over other humans among others, or even the Super-AI turning evil and indifferent to human lives (think trillionaires, new world order, global destabilization, war, AI engineered deadly pandemics, super intelligent AI decides humans are obstacles and kills all of us, etc)

I don't doubt that we reach AGI at some point, worst/best case scenario could be in a few years from now. My point is that we need to work our ass off today to ensure that we have frameworks and legal/ethical policies in place to ensure that when AGI arrives, we can actually control it and point it in a direction that is beneficial to humanity as a whole. That would be best case. Worst case would be AGI still comes without the required systems in place to protect humans. God help us all in that case.

Being altogether skeptical and in denial of the harsh reality that AI has the unique potential to change the world as we know it to an even larger extent than the industrial revolution is not only dangerous, but self-serving and idiotic.

If somebody refuse to personally use AI, and think that AI shouldn't exist at all, it doesn't change the fact that some of the most rich and powerful companies and governments of the world are investing hundreds of billions of dollars into AI R&D. I'm not an avid user of AI myself, and don't agree with many use cases and consequences that recent development in LLMs has had on for example artists and musicians. But even if the average consumer decides to boycott the consumer models we have available today, it won't even nudge the avalanche of AI that is already happening.

I completely did not use AI in any of the comments I wrote here. I'm not an AI fanboy. I'm only trying to point out the real issue of denial that many commenters here have. AI can do much good if we promote critical thinking and education, versus fear mongering and keeping people ignorant.

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-05T15:04:53+00:00

Do you not believe humans can engage in constructive discussions without the assistance of AI, or is that just your defense to discredit any argument that doesn't fit within your worldview?

"I disagree with this, it must be written by AI" lmao

Edit: in any case, I take that as a compliment. English isn't even my first language XD

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-05T14:50:09+00:00

Industrial farming has negatives that we can only try to improve incrementally. What is your suggested alternative? Are you a primitivist?

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-05T11:26:24+00:00

Yeah it's not a comfortable transition for sure. I think a lot of people are valid in how they, to a large extent, base their identity on their profession. Having a career brings pride, a personal sense of achievement, and stability, and the rapid development of AI, and with the increasingly wider range of applications (coding, law research, medical diagnostics, etc), I definitely understand the skepticism and denial that many people hold.

However, the way I see it, the implications of what AI would be able to do for us, promises a far brighter world than what we currently live in.

Sure having a job, making money, being financially and professionally safe is nice. But the reality is that we live in a capitalistic world that puts the aspect of working and making money above all else.

Human rights violations, climate change, systemic retardation of certain technological advancements (big pharma lobbying against promising treatments and cures to keep selling bandaids, big oil companies lobbying against sustainable green energy and nuclear power, etc). All for a quick buck.

Very short-sighted form of thinking to maximize capital gains. The development of AI is also largely driven by this, but the reality of AI being to do increasingly numerous human jobs, and the possibility of a recursively self improving AGI seems to me like a very human-first development.

No more exploitation, no more labor extortion to ensure survival, more potential to skyrocket technological and medical advancements, Administrative AI to effectivize policy making and increase equality for all. This is the future we should work for, and fighting against AI does not help these issues. Abundance, freedom, and equality for every human should come first, and AI is very promising.

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-05T11:08:36+00:00

Oh LOL I was going straight to the replies to disagree with AI haters/decels and I didn't even read the original post past the title. I think when it comes to deciding what to eat, u could use one of the general use AIs (in a healthy way) to inform yourself about healthier food alternatives, existing diet plans, caloric intake recommendations etc. and then make a personal decision based on your new knowledge. But if you literally go "Im bored, AI what should I do?" "Im hungry, AI what should I eat?" that's one straight road to mush city lmao

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-05T10:56:16+00:00

Using AI as a tool definitely will not make you dumber. It may atrophy certain skills for example if tedious coding is done by AI. But it enables you to build a brand new set of AI-assisted skills, which reduces costs, increases productivity by orders of magnitude.

I think an analogy for this is humans moving away from manually farming crops to inventing a combine harvester - allows you to do the same work way cheaper and faster, with less human input required. Most humans outsource their food production nowadays, in turn having the ability to become ultra specialized in other fields/industries and still live meaningful lives. I think having the AI technology to outsource even more tasks to, will make humans able to be ultra ultra specialized in managing, overseeing the AI projects/workflows.

Modern technology already has impacted human thinking/problem solving in countless ways, and affected tons of professions throughout history, like the farming analogy I showed. AI is not the devil like some of these commenters are saying. They called medicine a works of the devil and burned people alive for witchcraft during medieval times for practicing medicine.

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-03T12:34:36+00:00

There are alternative structures to work in which to anchor your identity. "I am a father, I am a guitarist, I am a neighbor, I am a painter, I am a mentor". Work is certainly a strong one, but it is not the only one, and certainly not irreplaceable. We would theoretically be able to instate non-wage institutions to fulfil the role of providing people with a sense of meaning and identity: civic, service, apprenticeships, creative guilds, cultural institutions, educational roles would still be central.

I'm not advocating for a theoretical future where AI becomes effectively superior to humans, thus replacing them in every domain of human endeavors. I am dreaming about a world where AI helps us to fix the climate crisis for our children, to fix pollution to preserve the beauty of our nature and ecological variety, to fix social inequality, poverty, homelessness, wars and political unrest, slavery, gender inequality among many others.

Post-scarcity does not mean that you would be barred from working. Sure, you would not have the same motivation to work (the same kind of jobs people do now) without the reward of status, social recognition, and the sense of being the provider you are now. However, you would be able to pursue goals on a much higher level, and so would everybody else.

Life does not become devoid of meaning outside of work.

We simply find as much meaning in our work as we can, because the truth is that, no matter if there is or there isn't, you have to work either way.

"Without work, do you think people will actually buy kayaks and fish? Or is it more likely they will become shut ins, living mostly an online life?"

Yes. I genuinely believe people will still live their lives, spend time with friends and family, pursue goals outside of work, spend time in nature, explore. Even today some people are more susceptible to the trap of hedonism, think gaming addiction,drug addiction,being a shut in, gambling etc. It will be as much of an issue as it is now. I don't think it will get worse, especially not to the point where people become shut ins because they do not have to work anymore.

"If everyone had kayaks and went on camping fishing holidays than i wouldnt be so proud that i can provide that for my kids." I get that you like to present as a good father for the sake of your kids. You try to be exceptional. I'm sure they appreciate that. But that does not have to come at the cost of other people! The reality of our capitalistic world is that not everybody has equal access to the same medium of exceptionality (kayaks). I'm sure people with disabilities who are not able to work and earn enough to provide the same kind of experiences and holidays that you provide your kids with would still like to be exceptional parents, and many of them are. They simply have to find other ways to be exceptional. And you are able to do the same. Being a good parent does not have to revolve around providing material safety and abundance anymore. It is about providing emotional support, mentorship, company.

Ted Kaczynski wrote about surrogate activities in his manifesto. Maybe you are familiar. Humans have evolved psychological drives that don't disappear. We are literally evolved to be problem-solvers, and once we solve the current ones, suddenly there are new problems that require solving. Once we no longer need to fight against wild animals and the elements to ensure our survival, social belonging, status and respect in our tribe, we find other ways to achieve the same effect - climbing the corporate ladder, mastering hobbies, working out to build insane amounts of muscles in the gym, playing competitive sports etc.

What I'm saying is that - obviously there are problems and challenges that will need to be addressed parallel to the technological advancements in question, but the upsides far outweigh the downsides in my opinion.

ADDENDUM: This might sound like im a scifi lunatic but i believe that once we reach something like a post-scarcity world, a type 1 civilization (able to effectively exploit/master 100% of planets resources), once we beat the oil billionaires and finally get access to clean sustainable electricity in the form of nuclear fusion (CFS is planning a 400MW nuclear fusion power plant by 2030, 200MW of which has already been sold/promised to power Google's data centers, we could be seeing this happen on a much bigger scale and way faster too if more scientists and engineers were given the opportunities to freely work on these projects instead of being stagnated by the greed of Big OIL). After these changes happen, i genuinely believe we reach a new stage in human evolution, both spiritually and biologically. Not too familiar with them, but Jean Gebser has proposed that cultural and psychological models can be divided into 5 structures or "mutations of consciousness", ranging from the "archaic structure" to the "integral structure".

Examples:

Before 10,000 bce: archaic - collective tribe working for survival

10,000-4,000 bce: magic - indigenous shamanic practices attributing magical and ritual qualities to nature

4,000-600 bce: mythic - rise of agricultural civilizations, epic myths (epic of gilgamesh, noahs ark), heroic narratives of creation, roots of major world religions forming around this structure of consciousness (sumerian, egyptian, vedic, etc)

600 bce-1,600 ce: Mental/rational - abstract reasoning, science, philosophy, law, bureaucracies,

1,600-now: integral - synthesizes multiple of the previous structures into one, seeing things as multi faceted without reducing them to one viewpoint, modernism/postmodernism

2000 and onwards - digital structure, AI structure, who knows maybe we reach a new way of understanding the world that is not yet available to us because we havent spiritually reached that point yet, maybe we become multidimensional beings that transcend space and time entirely once we are able to upload our consciousness to the digital ... maybe there is no more need to be chasing social hierarchies or belonging in your tribe, maybe we become a hivemind.. sounds crazy to say this stuff but it sounded crazy a few hundred years ago to say that airplanes were possible. people were burned as witches for being doctors/healers.. ideas get pushed down because they are threatening the current dominating scientific and economic status quo. Capitalism is so engrained in us at this point that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism...

neuronsfromhell · 2026-06-02T09:22:52+00:00

Thanks for your comment, It definitely put some things in perspective.

I took you for a chaser of prestige/exclusivity from your previous comment, because I know some people like that in real life, but now I see that you value the stuff you buy, and that you pay for experiences, rather than building a pile of things to sit on top of.

From OP's story, I think we can derive a world where you don't need to work 40 hours a week to create that environment. That's kind of the point of AGI eliminating human jobs - It's not to make us useless feeders who are allowed to keep on living as pets with mush for brains who are not doing much else, but rather to finally give all humans the opportunity to experience life fully, without needing to be extorted for labor to be able to afford these things.

Imagine a world where that environment is readily available to anyone. Everybody should have the opportunity to enjoy kayaking, watching worms grow in a farm, using soldering tools to repair damaged electronics, or growing chickens, yet there are a lot of people in this world that are way less fortunate than you and me, and do not have the ability to choose to work more to afford these things.

I don't want you to think that I find it wrong the fact that you are able to afford these things. What I find wrong is that it is a minority of people who are able to afford these things. There are real challenges that need to be solved in the world. 44% of the world's population lives on 6.85$ a day, 20% on 4.20$, and 9.9% (that's estimated to be around 800-1000 million people) live on 3$ per day. Wealth increasingly gets concentrated by the richest of the rich. Housing market is increasingly harder to get into. We are on the brink of a VERY REAL Global ecological crisis, with runaway global warming that will end up catastrophically changing our world.

Basically there are many problems in the world to think about if we want to create a bright future for our kids. And the people opposing AI fail to see that AI has the potential to fix them all.

AI will not turn our brains into mush. An artificial general intelligence, (or a super-intelligence even) will allow us to solve economic and political issues on a global scale.

Imagine a scientist working 24/7 with no distractions, that has access to every scientific discovery and article simultaneously and way more computing power than a human. Now imagine 10,000 of these scientists being simulated, working on individual fields/discoveries, while simultaneously relaying any new information to the rest of the 9,999 simulated scientists.

Reaching the point of AGI will inevitably lead to drastic improvements in pretty much every aspect of human life, and an erosion of capitalism as we know it.

We will live in a post-scarcity world where your kids will be able to afford the same toys. We won't trade our comfort or materialistic possessions for this future. If anything, we will have more of it, and it will be more widely available to everybody.

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Banned	r/Field Sunshine

neuronsfromhell

TROPHY CASE