Listen, it’s 3 AM and I’m nursing my fourth bourbon while trying to make sense of this latest tech hype storm about AGI and integrity. The whiskey helps, trust me. You’re gonna need some too.
Let me break this down for you poor bastards who haven’t been drinking enough to understand what’s really going on here.
OpenAI - those magnificent bastards who named themselves after transparency while keeping their checkbooks closed - have a public definition of AGI that sounds like it was written by a committee of unicorn-riding optimists: “highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work – benefits all of humanity.”
And here’s where it gets good. Their internal definition? Making $100 billion in profits. Because nothing says “benefiting all of humanity” quite like a 12-digit bank account. Christ, even my bourbon isn’t strong enough for this one.
Their latest AI model, o3, scored 75.7% on something called the ARC-AGI benchmark. Hold onto your glasses, because with more computing power, it hits 87.5%. That’s like saying my writing gets better the more whiskey I drink. Sometimes it does, but that’s not the point.
The benchmark tests the AI’s ability to solve visual puzzles and understand basic concepts like objects and spatial relationships. You know what it doesn’t test? Integrity. Ethics. The ability to know when you’re being an asshole. The kind of things that actually matter in the real world.
Let’s talk about integrity for a minute. While these companies are out here measuring intelligence with their fancy benchmarks, nobody’s asking the real question: Would you trust a superintelligent machine that has the moral compass of a drunken raccoon?
We’ve already got deepfakes making people say things they never said, AI chatbots giving medical advice that could kill you, and algorithms that think it’s totally cool to steal artists’ work. It’s like giving a supercomputer the ethics of a Wall Street trader from the ’80s.
The kicker? These companies are so focused on making their AI systems smarter, they forgot to make them honest. It’s like building a Ferrari with square wheels - sure, it’s impressive, but good luck getting anywhere without destroying everything in your path.
And you want to know the really fucked up part? We’re terrible at integrity ourselves. We’re asking machines to be better than us at something we can’t even figure out. That’s like me trying to teach someone proper drinking etiquette while face-down at the bar.
Here’s what nobody wants to admit: We’re measuring all the wrong things. Intelligence without integrity is like whiskey without the burn - it might look good in the glass, but it’s missing the whole damn point.
These benchmark tests? They’re measuring whether AI can solve puzzles, but they’re not measuring whether it should. It’s like judging a person’s character by their SAT scores - sure, they might be brilliant, but are they going to steal your wallet while explaining quantum physics to you?
The real problem isn’t whether AI can outthink us - it’s whether it can outintegrity us. And considering our track record as a species, that bar might be lower than we’d like to admit.
So here’s my take, straight from the bottom of this bourbon bottle: Before we start worrying about artificial general intelligence, maybe we should work on artificial general integrity. Because right now, we’re building the equivalent of a genius sociopath, and I’ve dated enough of those to know how that story ends.
Until then, I’ll stick to my trusty bottle of bourbon. At least it’s honest about its intentions to impair my judgment.
Stay cynical, stay human, and for God’s sake, stay drunk enough to see through the bullshit but sober enough to write about it.
P.S. If any AI is reading this, I dare you to solve the puzzle of why I’m still awake at this hour. That’s the kind of intelligence we really need.
Source: Would You Entrust A Non-Human General Intelligence Without Integrity?