Alberto Hernández-Espinosa

Alberto Hernández-Espinosa, Luan Ozelim, Felipe S. Abrahão et al.

We introduce an open-ended test grounded in algorithmic probability that can avoid benchmark contamination in the quantitative evaluation of frontier models in the context of their Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and Superintelligence (ASI) claims. Unlike other tests, this test does not rely on statistical compression methods (such as GZIP or LZW), which are more closely related to Shannon entropy than to Kolmogorov complexity and are not able to test beyond simple pattern matching. The test challenges aspects of AI, in particular LLMs, related to features of intelligence of fundamental nature such as synthesis and model creation in the context of inverse problems (generating new knowledge from observation). We argue that metrics based on model abstraction and abduction (optimal Bayesian `inference') for predictive `planning' can provide a robust framework for testing intelligence, including natural intelligence (human and animal), narrow AI, AGI, and ASI. We found that LLM model versions tend to be fragile and incremental as a result of memorisation only with progress likely driven by the size of training data. The results were compared with a hybrid neurosymbolic approach that theoretically guarantees universal intelligence based on the principles of algorithmic probability and Kolmogorov complexity. The method outperforms LLMs in a proof-of-concept on short binary sequences. We prove that compression is equivalent and directly proportional to a system's predictive power and vice versa. That is, if a system can better predict it can better compress, and if it can better compress, then it can better predict. Our findings strengthen the suspicion regarding the fundamental limitations of LLMs, exposing them as systems optimised for the perception of mastery over human language.

Alberto Hernández-Espinosa, Felipe S. Abrahão, Olaf Witkowski et al.

The AI alignment problem, which focusses on ensuring that artificial intelligence (AI), including AGI and ASI, systems act according to human values, presents profound challenges. With the progression from narrow AI to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and Superintelligence, fears about control and existential risk have escalated. Here, we investigate whether embracing inevitable AI misalignment can be a contingent strategy to foster a dynamic ecosystem of competing agents as a viable path to steer them in more human-aligned trends and mitigate risks. We explore how misalignment may serve and should be promoted as a counterbalancing mechanism to team up with whichever agents are most aligned to human interests, ensuring that no single system dominates destructively. The main premise of our contribution is that misalignment is inevitable because full AI-human alignment is a mathematical impossibility from Turing-complete systems, which we also offer as a proof in this contribution, a feature then inherited to AGI and ASI systems. We introduce a change-of-opinion attack test based on perturbation and intervention analysis to study how humans and agents may change or neutralise friendly and unfriendly AIs through cooperation and competition. We show that open models are more diverse and that most likely guardrails implemented in proprietary models are successful at controlling some of the agents' range of behaviour with positive and negative consequences while closed systems are more steerable and can also be used against proprietary AI systems. We also show that human and AI intervention has different effects hence suggesting multiple strategies.