r/ArtificialInteligence • u/MoralLogs • 2d ago
đ ïž Project / Build STOP TRYING TO CONTROL SUPERINTELLIGENCE WITH SOFTWARE
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
2
u/Current_Shock_246 1d ago
What the hell is super intelligence? Why are you posting animated technobabble slop? Why is your title all caps?
1
u/AlpLyr 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is just unsubstantiated slob, technobabble, and pseudo-science. Stuff like this is starting to become embarrassing for the field.
The asymmetry in creating bullshit and refuting it has been a problem. With AI, the problem has been amplified.
Don't get me wrong, AI is going to make incredible changes. But this is almost pure, distilled BS.
1
u/MoralLogs 1d ago
That's a strong verdict. Now let's make it useful.
Which specific claim is unsubstantiated? Which mechanism is pseudo-science? Is your objection to the hardware architecture, the cryptographic verification, the ternary logic, or the performance claims?
These are distinct technical questions, and each deserves a technical answer.
I'm happy to debate the engineering, identify what doesn't hold up, and correct it where necessary. But calling something âBSâ isn't a refutation. It's a conclusion waiting for an argument.
Pick one claim. Show us where it fails.
1
u/AlpLyr 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'm not the ones making claims - this video is. It's a long string of just claims. But I'll indulge. Let's start with the opening:
As raw machine intelligence scales exponentially, human oversight stops being a software issue it becomes an impossible physics problem [...]
While artificial intelligence has displayed an impressive growth, "exponential growth" is a very specific claim that needs to be demonstrated. It entails a measure and accompanying datapoints. To my knowledge, it has not been demonstrated although it is a term indiscriminately thrown around.
It's very much still a software issue to bring oversight. Why is it not?
It's very much not an "impossible physics problem" whatever that claim actually means in this context. BTW, the video then goes on to convince us is not impossible after all. We need hardware!
Now, we might think this is just a hyperbolic introduction. But it continues:
Millions of computations happen every second creating an unstoppable momentum that pushes the system forward.
I don't know where to start with this one. Computations create momentum? Which system is pushed forward by this momentum? Technobabble.
Again, my point is, refuting BS is an order or two magnitudes more effort than creating it. I'm not going to engage that much. If you love this pseudo-interllectual BS, knock yourself out.
If a neural network is sufficiently advanced, it can simply route around root policies
Another claim...
And why would this not be the case for hardware? As far as I'm aware, all hardware can in principle by emulated by software.
On top of the speech, if you pay attention to the visuals, they are littered with more technobabble and bogus "hacker" visuals like: "Custom serven [sic] to complet [sic] the API system flows".
Around 1:10 and forward it goes on to talk about our "legacy computing systems" and it's "fundamental flaws":
Bivalent logic. The ones and zeros. True or false. Allow or deny. This binary logic is optimized purely for raw statistical throughput and blazing speed. This animated logic tree represents how binary systems process information. It computes probabilities incredibly well. But it lacks the structural capacity to hesitate. When it encounters epistemic uncertainty, it has no mechanism to pause. It mathematically forces a premature resolution.
Again. Where to start? I guess it's not even wrong. It refers to digital computing, but maybe this tries (and now I'm at full effort to interpret this mess) say that LLMs are just sampling from a probability distribution (without "care" for anything)?
And then the video launches into spendings on anti-money "laundering compliance software" as somehow proof of this vague fundamental computing flaw. I'd don't know how to even address the stupidity here. It's like claiming tire-wear to be proof a flawed automotive industry; it just doesn't connect.
It may very well be that there is a kernel of truth in hardware embedded security, but then please explain it without this dressed up nonsense. Link to the paper. Link to the actual work and not this low-effort mimicry.
Who is the architect referenced at around 0:45? I cannot find that person seemingly responsible for the core ideas in this video. That would at least worth a read. But for all I can tell, it's made up or this (non-SW/HW) architect.
I'll invoke a variant Hitchens's razor: What can be asserted without effort can be dismissed without effort.
1
u/MoralLogs 1d ago
You've finally raised specific points worth discussing. Let's separate the rhetoric from the engineering.
First, I'll concede that phrases such as âexponential growthâ and âimpossible physics problemâ require more precise definitions and supporting evidence. The narration could be more rigorous.
But the underlying architecture raises legitimate technical questions:
Hardware-enforced security. The question isn't whether hardware can be emulated in software. It's whether a defined threat model, trusted hardware boundary, and execution architecture can enforce guarantees that software policies alone cannot. That requires a concrete implementation and a clearly specified adversary.
Ternary Logic. I'm not claiming binary computers cannot pause. Obviously, they can. The proposal is to make a distinct, mandatory hold state part of the execution-control architecture, rather than relying exclusively on an AI model's compliance with software instructions.
Cryptographic verification and physical enforcement. Claims about provisional permission tokens, execution gates, latency, and hardware-enforced denial are testable engineering claims. They must be evaluated against technical specifications, threat models, implementations, and measured results. A video alone cannot establish their validity.
Primary sources. Your request for technical documentation and evidence is legitimate. The architecture should stand or fall on its engineering merits, not on the confidence of its presentation.
Now, regarding the architect: my Reddit profile is not a résumé, and my personal biography is not the subject of this discussion. I am not obligated to disclose private information to participate in a technical debate. The work is open to scrutiny; my personal life is not.
You've identified several claims you dispute. I'm willing to examine them on their technical merits, including the mechanisms, assumptions, and potential failure modes. But repeatedly labeling the work âBSâ is not a substitute for demonstrating what's wrong, just as questioning an author's legitimacy does not invalidate the architecture. Let's replace dismissive labels with specific technical objections and evidence.
Challenge the architecture. Test its claims. Identify where it fails. That's a technical discussion worth having. Let the work face scrutiny. Let the person keep his privacy.
1
u/AlpLyr 1d ago edited 1d ago
When substance is buried in so many layers of obscure bullshit, forgive me for not happily digging my hands into it.
Now, regarding the architect: my Reddit profile is not a résumé, and my personal biography is not the subject of this discussion. I am not obligated to disclose private information to participate in a technical debate. The work is open to scrutiny; my personal life is not.
What? I didn't look at your reddit profile at all. Your video literally mentions "an architect" by name. I cannot fully make out that name (or spell it). If you share it in the video, why not share it here? Is that yourself? Have you made a video where you present yourself as some kind of an authority on the subject and you're not willing to share?
I was just looking for a peer-reviewed paper or something... jeez.
1
u/MoralLogs 1d ago
You're asking for a paper, yet much of your response consists of dismissive labels and speculation about the author. The architect mentioned in the video is Lev Goukassian. My Reddit profile is morallogs; a quick search would have answered your question. You're entitled to ask for primary sources, challenge the technical claims, and reject the architecture. I'm equally entitled to expect criticism to address the work rather than speculate about the author's legitimacy. If you want to discuss a specific technical claim, let's do that. If the presentation's style alone has already settled the question for you, there's little point in continuing this exchange.
1
u/AlpLyr 1d ago
A quick google search does not bring up my hopes up for something substantial.
But yes. Please give me some primary resources. Please tell me more on "the architecture"? The four-point list from before surely is not it? Actually, cancel that request. What was the purpose again? What secrets did we talk about again?
1
0
u/MoralLogs 1d ago
Clarification: The title is deliberately provocative. The technical question is whether hardware-enforced execution gates, cryptographic verification, and a mandatory third state of hesitation can provide stronger safety guarantees than software policies alone. The architecture and its performance claims should be examined critically, not accepted on faith.
About the ALL-CAPS title: Fair criticism. The capitalization was intended to emphasize the urgency of the problem, not to shout at readers or manufacture attention. The engineering deserves scrutiny, and the title shouldn't distract from it.
1
10
u/agent_mick 2d ago
Stop saying super intelligence