Posts
Comments
Nice work Steven, I will try to keep it short; your discussion highlights critical aspects of autonomous learning and AI generalization, but I think it overlooks a foundational issue: Neither AI nor humans truly self-train without an external base of validation grounded in reality itself.
1. The Myth of Self-Training AI
AI today cannot be considered self-training in any meaningful sense because its validation sources are fundamentally either human-labeled data or heuristics derived from previous outputs. There is no external, reality-anchored feedback loop beyond what humans provide. The claim that AI autonomously generalizes is misleading because it does not—and cannot—validate its knowledge against anything more fundamental than opinionated datasets and predefined optimization metrics.
2. The Illusion of Human Self-Training
Even humans do not “self-train” in an absolute sense. Mathematicians locked in a room for a month may discover new proofs, but they are not generating truth from nothing. Instead, they run iterative models against an existing logical structure—one that, while internally consistent, is ultimately an abstraction attempting to approximate reality rather than an intrinsic truth of reality itself.
Mathematics is not reality; it is a language we use to describe it. And while it has been highly successful in modeling physical structures, it is not a self-existent base against which intelligence can validate itself.
3. The AGI Problem: No Ground Truth, No Validation
This is the core issue for AGI:
Unlike biological evolution, which is validated by survival constraints in the real world, AGI is not trained against a fundamental reality but rather against synthetic benchmarks and human judgment.
There is no direct mechanism for AGI to verify whether its learned models align with the actual causal structures of existence.
Without such a mechanism, AGI is fundamentally locked into a self-referential learning loop—an optimizer of human misconceptions rather than an independent system capable of discovering universal truths.
4. Why This Matters for the Sharp Left Turn
The Sharp Left Turn hypothesis assumes that AGI, upon achieving generalization, will rapidly outpace human oversight, developing novel insights beyond what humans can predict or control. But the real question isn’t whether AGI will generalize, but what it is generalizing against.
If AGI generalizes only within the scope of human-designed benchmarks, then its “sharp left turn” is merely an acceleration of our own incomplete, often flawed abstractions—not an emergence of true intelligence. True intelligence must be grounded in a base that is independent of opinion and self-referential reinforcement.
5. A Solution: A Base Truth Beyond Opinion
For AGI to meaningfully generalize in a way that is not just recursive optimization, it must:
1. Anchor its validation mechanisms in a base truth beyond human biases and synthetic benchmarks.
2. Avoid self-referential learning loops that reinforce initial assumptions rather than discovering new structures.
3. Recognize the limits of its own models and adapt based on direct interaction with fundamental reality.
6. Conclusion: The Real AGI Challenge
AI and humans alike do not "self-train"; they validate models against an external base.
The difference is in the degree of abstraction—humans refine models through indirect inference, while AI is currently trapped within its training data.
If AGI is to become truly intelligent, it must be connected to a universal causal framework that prevents it from becoming a high-speed optimizer of human misconceptions.
The Sharp Left Turn is not an inevitability; it is a function of how intelligence is structured and what it validates against. If AGI is built on opinionated, incomplete human knowledge, then its intelligence will remain constrained by those same limitations—accelerated but not transcendent.
To create truly autonomous intelligence, the problem is not just alignment; it is ensuring that AGI learns from reality itself, rather than recursively iterating over synthetic, self-referential abstractions.
Humans do learn from reality itself, but they are constrained by analogous and symbolic means of comprehending and conveying any learned concept.