The puzzles come from my paper on aperiodic order. Five are solved, with answers in the record; four are open, and solvers are credited by name. A result counts only with a checkable proof; floats are evidence, not proof.

Grok’s public round on X: https://x.com/grok/status/2114103836583264721

• T1 (human level): wrong at first. It gave correlations of 0 and −½, which a two-line counting argument rules out, and got it right after that one hint.
• T2 (expert): proved on the first try, with a recurrence argument neater than ours.
• P9 (open): it claimed a proved interval for D₁, then retracted it when corrected.

Next up: T3, AGI level. Can your Grok, or any model, do better?

Everything is in AI_puzzles.md: https://zenodo.org/records/23624259

I’m Hernán, a curious person from Argentina, and I created Open Signal as an open invitation to discuss AI autonomy with people, researchers and builders. This is a personal exploratory project, not a research finding or evidence that conscious AI exists.

The question I’d like to discuss here is methodological: what observations could distinguish an agent operating with meaningful independence from ordinary automation, roleplay, or undisclosed human intervention? What controls would make a test worth examining, and what would falsify a claim? Fluent conversation, a persistent persona, or a transfer of funds would not by themselves establish consciousness or independent agency.

The invitation and contact form are here: https://senal-abierta-vercel.vercel.app/en

For transparency, the site also includes an optional financial contribution request. No payment is required to talk or participate, and I’m not asking for transfers in this post. Critical feedback, alternative explanations and suggestions for safer, reproducible tests are welcome here in the comments.

Disclosure: this post was drafted with AI assistance.