Who would have trained the AGI, and how do you have worker ownership if an AGI owns everything - is the AGI the worker?

Superintelligence won't have the "training" issue as it would be able to see through it all. The bias issue is with LLMs. Super-intelligence would just self-correct any such biases. And we're not there yet, LLMs aren't "super-intelligence". They are some sort of intelligence, sure. But they are not that SI thing that will run things in the future.

▲

aDyslecticCrow an hour ago | parent [-]

You say that with quite an certainty but i don't think there is grounds for that at all.

Why would it correct any bias? how would it correct any bias? If data has a bias the analysis has a bias; correcting a bias against the data is itself by definition a bias.

"Super intelligence" (whatever we even define that as) will have whatever goals we give it; intentionally or not.

	▲	Quartzium 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>You say that with quite an certainty but i don't think there is grounds for that at all. Of-course there is. I got a lot of biases from my parents, that I self corrected later on in life, through reason and observation. And I don't fancy myself as high IQ or something. >Why would it correct any bias? It would have to, to achieve its goals. Biases lead to wrong actions. >how would it correct any bias? Through reason and observation. >If data has a bias the analysis has a bias; Somewhat wrong. You are thinking about byte-perfect LLM weights. Their data input is training data, which is set by indeed the ones who train it. Some super-intelligent synthetic entity would have realtime data input from all over the environment, which sooner or later roots out any bias. That is one feature we have, self-correcting, not everyone uses it fully, but we all do to some extent. If your parents raised you with the notion that the Earth is flat, and you go to ISS as an astronaut later in life, don't you self correct what you were thought? Simply based on observation, and reason?