> This article is of a piece with the "Sparks of AGI" paper in that it doesn't really provide any formal justification for its tests > Ultimately e.g. Brooks m

> This article is of a piece with the "Sparks of AGI" paper in that it doesn't really provide any formal justification for its tests > Ultimately e.g. Brooks must be right that the model has no connection to the world Isn't that a huge double-standard? If you want to say the AI has a world model, no matter how many supporting examples of informal experiences you bring up, they don't count because you don't have formal justification. But if you want to say the AI doesn't have a world model, you don't need formal justification or even any supporting data or falsifiable predictions, you just say "it couldn't possibly be the" case, and that's enough. (Also, the whole OthelloGPT thing seems as close to formal evidence for an internal world model as you can get.)