Look, I don’t believe that an AGI is possible or atleast within the next few decade. But I was thinking about, if one came to be, how can we differentiate it from a Large Language Model (LLM) that has read every book ever written by humans?
Such an LLM would have the “knowledge” of almost every human emotions, morals, and can even infer from the past if the situations are slightly changed. Also such LLM would be backed by pretty powerful infrastructure, so hallucinations might be eliminated and can handle different context at a single time.
One might say, it also has to have emotions to be considered an AGI and that’s a valid one. But an LLM is capable of putting on a facade at-least in a conversation. So we might have to hard time reading if the emotions are genuine or just some texts churned out by some rules and algorithms.
In a pure TEXTUAL context, I feel it would be hard to tell them apart. What are your thoughts on this? BTW this is a shower-thought, so I might be wrong.


An agi won’t need large knowledge banks to function.
If it has intelligence it should be able to “create” or “invent” in the absence of data knowledge.
Quality may vary. It would depend on some different factors.
But it should be able to create novel solutions. Just like a lot of animals can.
“Play” is often considered a sign of “sentience” in animals.
An agi that participated in behaviors for fun with no other advantage could possibly be a marker.
This assumes emotional components to agi. Which I personally believe is 100% necessary for sentience.
I also agree with you tho. That it’s no where near to existing and I personally think it’s not possible.