惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

I
InfoQ
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research
月光博客
月光博客
B
Blog
罗磊的独立博客
GbyAI
GbyAI
博客园 - 三生石上(FineUI控件)
雷峰网
雷峰网
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
Microsoft Security Blog
Microsoft Security Blog
宝玉的分享
宝玉的分享
The GitHub Blog
The GitHub Blog
人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理
博客园 - Franky
有赞技术团队
有赞技术团队
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
博客园 - 聂微东
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
V
Visual Studio Blog
MyScale Blog
MyScale Blog
Google DeepMind News
Google DeepMind News
G
Google Developers Blog
aimingoo的专栏
aimingoo的专栏

cs.CL updates on arXiv.org

Playing Along: Learning a Double-Agent Defender for Belief Steering via Theory of Mind RPA-Check: A Multi-Stage Automated Framework for Evaluating Dynamic LLM-based Role-Playing Agents A Triadic Suffix Tokenization Scheme for Numerical Reasoning Hidden Measurement Error in LLM Pipelines Distorts Annotation, Evaluation, and Benchmarking Synthius-Mem: Brain-Inspired Hallucination-Resistant Persona Memory Achieving 94.4% Memory Accuracy and 99.6% Adversarial Robustness on LoCoMo Time is Not a Label: Continuous Phase Rotation for Temporal Knowledge Graphs and Agentic Memory NovBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Academic Paper Novelty Assessment Policy Split: Incentivizing Dual-Mode Exploration in LLM Reinforcement with Dual-Mode Entropy Regularization METER: Evaluating Multi-Level Contextual Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models Think Before you Write: QA-Guided Reasoning for Character Descriptions in Books METRO: Towards Strategy Induction from Expert Dialogue Transcripts for Non-collaborative Dialogues Retrieval as Generation: A Unified Framework with Self-Triggered Information Planning Do LLMs Know Tool Irrelevance? Demystifying Structural Alignment Bias in Tool Invocations Enhancing Multimodal Large Language Models for Ancient Chinese Character Evolution Analysis via Glyph-Driven Fine-Tuning Polyglot Teachers: Evaluating Language Models for Multilingual Synthetic Data Generation Exploring Knowledge Conflicts for Faithful LLM Reasoning: Benchmark and Method CocoaBench: Evaluating Unified Digital Agents in the Wild MathAgent: Adversarial Evolution of Constraint Graphs for Mathematical Reasoning Data Synthesis Evaluating Memory Capability in Continuous Lifelog Scenario How Robust Are Large Language Models for Clinical Numeracy? An Empirical Study on Numerical Reasoning Abilities in Clinical Contexts Efficient Training for Cross-lingual Speech Language Models Shared Emotion Geometry Across Small Language Models: A Cross-Architecture Study of Representation, Behavior, and Methodological Confounds A Systematic Analysis of the Impact of Persona Steering on LLM Capabilities Uncertainty-Aware Web-Conditioned Scientific Fact-Checking When Valid Signals Fail: Regime Boundaries Between LLM Features and RL Trading Policies When Verification Fails: How Compositionally Infeasible Claims Escape Rejection Mem$^2$Evolve: Towards Self-Evolving Agents via Co-Evolutionary Capability Expansion and Experience Distillation AOP-Smart: A RAG-Enhanced Large Language Model Framework for Adverse Outcome Pathway Analysis OccuBench: Evaluating AI Agents on Real-World Professional Tasks via Language Environment Simulation Advancing Polish Language Modeling through Tokenizer Optimization in the Bielik v3 7B and 11B Series
On the Computability of Artificial General Intelligence
Georgios Mappouras, Charalambos Rossides · 2025-12-05 · via cs.CL updates on arXiv.org

In recent years we observed rapid and significant advancements in artificial intelligence (A.I.). So much so that many wonder how close humanity is to developing an A.I. model that can achieve human level of intelligence, also known as artificial general intelligence (A.G.I.). In this work we look at this question and we attempt to define the upper bounds, not just of A.I., but rather of any machine-computable process (a.k.a. an algorithm). To answer this question however, one must first precisely define A.G.I. We borrow prior work's definition of A.G.I. [1] that best describes the sentiment of the term, as used by the leading developers of A.I. That is, the ability to be creative and innovate in some field of study in a way that unlocks new and previously unknown functional capabilities in that field. Based on this definition we draw new bounds on the limits of computation. We formally prove that no algorithm can demonstrate new functional capabilities that were not already present in the initial algorithm itself. Therefore, no algorithm (and thus no A.I. model) can be truly creative in any field of study, whether that is science, engineering, art, sports, etc. In contrast, A.I. models can demonstrate existing functional capabilities, as well as combinations and permutations of existing functional capabilities. We conclude this work by discussing the implications of this proof both as it regards to the future of A.I. development, as well as to what it means for the origins of human intelligence.