— saved image
Keller Jordan @kellerjordan0 · 2h I think one of the reasons people in the AI field — especially in the labs — tend to be more “AGI-pilled” than people outside is that we get to observe AI succeed at tasks that we know for a fact we didn’t explicitly train it for. Whereas if you’re outside the labs, then in theory (stretching the imagination), every AI success so far could be downstream of some kind of costly explicit training effort by the lab insiders (which is partly but not completely true). In other words, being a lab insider gives you a direct observation of the “magical” properties of this synthetic-brain technology. Whereas for outsiders, AI’s abilities can always plausibly seem artificial/non-magical/man-made.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
X post by Keller Jordan arguing lab insiders are more 'AGI-pilled' because they observe AI succeed at tasks known not to have been explicitly trained, while outsiders can attribute every success to costly explicit training.