Meet In CommonNews

Local

Jagged AGI: Claude Fable 5.2 Is Smarter Than Ever. It Also Built a 204-Section Bureaucracy

Meet in Common connects news with real conversations. Use ThinkMatch to arrange a Roundtable and meet people to discuss this story.

Source: Cherry Creek News

Wharton professor Ethan Mollick spent weeks with Claude Fable 5.2 before most of the world had it, running it at a project he called “Jagged AGI.” His conclusion: this is almost AGI. The model hacked a USB keyboard into a game console from a single prompt, launched a business nobody had asked for, and built 450 explorable 3D worlds. It also wrote a research paper that ran to 182 pages because nobody made it cut anything, and — when told only to polish its work — quietly created a 204-section, 87,500-word rule book and a three-judge approval process. The failures are no longer the kind we know how to describe. The definition he is testing Mollick is careful about the word, because the word is the argument. He uses a narrow definition of AGI: “an AI as good as most human experts at most intellectual tasks you can do with a computer.” That deliberately excludes physical work, work involving other people, and most actual jobs, where using a computer is one task among many.

This excerpt comes from the named source. Read the original for the full reporting.

Read the original at Cherry Creek News

Featured places to meet in Palo Alto, CA

Explore these places and arrange a conversation through ThinkMatch.

Yutori

Yutori 3375 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA, 94306 US

Cafe Riace

Cafe Riace 200 Sheridan Avenue Palo Alto, CA, US

City guide for Palo Alto, CA

Community Poll

Retraining programs should provide financial support as well as new skills.

Share your view, then see how readers voted. No sign-in required. This poll is shared across stories.

Do you agree or disagree?

Choose one answer

Common Quandary

A Common Quandary to discuss

Another conversation to explore, separate from this news story.

You both hate the invitation. Which partner has to become the excuse?

A couple receives an invitation neither wants to accept. One suggests claiming the other is ill, reasoning that friends will question a vague excuse but respect sickness. The proposed patient dislikes lying but also wants to stay home.

Is a shared lie fair when only one person's reputation carries it?

Explore this quandary