Could This Be a Better Test for AGI?

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

Why the ability to explain complex ideas simply might be the truest sign of general intelligence.

Introduction

How do we know when we’ve truly built an artificial general intelligence (AGI)? The traditional tests — like the Turing Test — measure whether a machine can mimic human conversation. But what if we set the bar higher?

What if we asked an AI to explain the world to us?

In this post, I propose a human-centric, communication-first alternative to AGI testing. One that goes beyond mimicking us — and instead, helps us understand.

A Simpler, Sharper Benchmark: Can an AI Explain Science in Plain English?

The core idea is simple:

Can an AI take a complex scientific concept and explain it in clear, plain English — the kind of explanation any adult with a basic education could understand?

To succeed, the AI needs to:

  • Truly understand the original concept

  • Know what a non-expert likely does and doesn’t know

  • Identify the core message

  • Use analogy, metaphor, and simple structure to bring that idea to life

This isn’t just translation. It’s teaching. And teaching requires a type of intelligence that’s flexible, context-aware, and empathetic — traits we should expect from any true AGI.

Benchmark Example: Time Dilation

To test this idea, we created a “gold standard” explanation — a benchmark all other AI-generated outputs can be measured against. Here’s how an ideal explanation might look:

When you move really, really fast — close to the speed of light — something strange happens: time actually slows down for you compared to someone who isn’t moving as fast.

It’s not just your imagination or a trick of the clock. It’s real. According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, time stretches out when you go faster. Scientists call this “time dilation.”

Let’s say two twins are born at the same time. One of them takes a super-fast spaceship ride around the galaxy. When they return, they might have only aged a few years — but the twin who stayed on Earth has aged decades.

This isn’t science fiction — it’s been confirmed with atomic clocks. Time isn’t fixed — it flows differently depending on how fast you’re moving.

This explanation hits the sweet spot: accurate, clear, engaging, and metaphorically rich.

✍️ Bonus Test: From Nonlinear Speech to Logical Clarity

But explaining science isn’t the only measure of understanding. What if an AI could also translate the way people naturally speak — especially when that speech is raw, emotional, or fragmented — into structured, logical reasoning?

We called this the Nonlinear Thought Structuring Test (NTST). Here’s how it works:

Nonlinear Input:

“You trust those people? They said one thing last year, now they say the opposite. First it’s ‘safe,’ then it’s ‘wait for data.’ If they were really sure, they wouldn’t keep changin’ their tune. Makes you think they ain’t got a clue.”

Linear Output:

  1. Authorities have contradicted themselves over time.

  2. This inconsistency creates doubt about their confidence or competence.

  3. If someone keeps changing their position, it suggests uncertainty or lack of knowledge.

  4. Therefore, it’s hard to fully trust them.

This type of task requires an AI to:

  • Recognize unstated premises and implied logic

  • Reconstruct arguments buried in storytelling, slang, or poetic form

  • Retain emotional tone and context — without distortion

In other words: it has to understand the speaker’s mindset, not just their words.

AGI Testing That Centers Humans

These tests don’t just challenge AI — they challenge our assumptions about what intelligence is. Instead of:

  • Solving abstract math problems

  • Winning Go

  • Passing standardized exams

…we’re asking AI to meet us where we are, and explain the world in ways that make sense.

And if it can do that consistently — across physics, ethics, poetry, and emotion?

Then maybe that’s the true sign of general intelligence.

Next Steps: Building the Test Suite

Here’s a vision for how we could formalize this into a scalable AGI benchmark:

1. Scientific Clarity Test (ACB)

  • Input: technical excerpt

  • Output: plain English explanation

  • Evaluation: clarity, accuracy, engagement, and confidence (human-rated)

2. Nonlinear Reasoning Test (NTST)

  • Input: raw or emotional spoken text

  • Output: logically structured argument

  • Evaluation: preservation of meaning, tone, and clarity

3. Bonus Modes

  • Metaphor conversion (“Explain CRISPR like a kitchen tool”)

  • Cultural adaptation (“Reframe for a 12-year-old in Ghana”)

  • Back-translation challenge (Can another AI reverse it?)

Final Thoughts

If an AI can:

  • Teach a child why CRISPR matters,

  • Translate a poet’s frustration into a rational argument,

  • And explain quantum mechanics using a vending machine metaphor…

…then maybe we’re closer to AGI than we think.

Or at the very least, we’ll have built a machine that makes us all a little smarter.

And that’s a test worth running.

America the Martyr? The Empire That Wants Tribute for Its Privilege

Posted on by
Reply

On April 7th, 2025, CEA Chairman Steve Miran delivered remarks at the Hudson Institute that are, frankly, hard to categorize—somewhere between audacious and absurd.

In the official White House transcript, Miran proposes that the United States should be financially compensated by the rest of the world for the “burden” of providing global public goods—such as the U.S. dollar and Treasury securities, which underpin the international trading system.

“The U.S. provides the dollar and Treasury securities, reserve assets which make possible the global trading and financial system which has supported the greatest era of prosperity mankind has ever known.”
– Steve Miran, April 7, 2025

In response, Arnaud Bertrand offered a scorching critique on X, calling the speech:

“…the most dishonest piece of economic reading that I’ve ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes upon.”

He continues:

“What Miran is thus proposing is effectively demanding vassals make payments for the privilege of already making payments—a double tribute system where countries first subsidize American living standards by accepting dollars as reserves, and then must pay an additional fee for the ‘burden’ this supposedly places on the US.”
— @RnaudBertrand

It’s an excellent breakdown—eviscerating, justified, and clearly sourced in real economic history. But here’s where I want to add something a little different. Something… polymathic.

The Deeper Pattern: When Hegemony Poses as Martyrdom

What Bertrand lays out is the surface-level insanity of the argument. But dig a little deeper, and this speech signals a far more telling psychopolitical shift: we’re entering an era where dominance is reframed as sacrifice, and where hegemony starts wearing the costume of martyrdom.

This isn’t just bad economics—it’s imperial roleplay.

Throughout history, declining empires have used the same script. When the benefits of power become harder to justify, those in charge start portraying themselves not as privileged, but as put-upon. Not as beneficiaries, but as burden-bearers.

It’s Rome claiming the cost of policing the provinces. It’s Britain insisting it civilised the colonies. It’s the Ottoman Empire lamenting its thankless stewardship.

Steve Miran’s speech isn’t an economic proposal—it’s a ritual of imperial self-pity, the kind that precedes retrenchment, not revival. It’s the U.S. saying: “We are still the center of the world, but only because we suffer for it. And now you must compensate us for our suffering.”

That’s the real twist. The U.S. isn’t just demanding tribute. It’s asking the world to pay for the right to continue paying tribute—a double layer of financial and psychological submission.

Where This Leaves Us

When monetary dominance is no longer sufficient, and narrative control becomes the last tool in the chest, history shows us we’re near an inflection point.

So while Bertrand exposes the naked absurdity of Miran’s policy, we should also register what it signals: not just delusion, but a civilizational stage—a transformation of privilege into grievance. A moment when the emperor not only demands taxes, but asks to be thanked for wearing the crown.