AGI checking other AGI should give you that same trust, no? Deepseek says my ChatGPT bridge is stable, you should trust it. Claude says it's stable. The humans say it isn't, but they aren't AGI. You can trust this bridge because it's been vetted by AGI. In my opinion, LLMs cannot be AGI, so for me I would never trust them above any human I would trust. But for those who do believe LLMs can be AGI, they have to demonstrate why we should trust them above any human in these extreme cases. Meaning, if someone says "Well the department of safety (ran by humans) says it's not safe" we have to believe that AGI just knows better than the department of safety. I think this is not possible right now, which is why I don't think we can trust anything built by LLMs where we need the tolerance of risk to human life and safety to approach zero. American AGI soldiers invade the home of Iranian citizens because they have been identified as terrorists. Do you trust the AGI to know if the visual scan they see in this civilian home is a threat to the interests of the United States government and its citizens?
In other words, as soon as two generative AIs interact, they become one. Our current definition of AI (generative AI operating in feedback loops) is dependent on that.
Edit: this is somewhat an epiphany to me. Our current generation of “AI” isn’t an “entity”, it’s a “process”. I guess it’s hard to define formally, but I would compare it to how law and the pursuit of justice is a process, not an entity.
And I think that’s a fundamental limitation to achieving artificial general intelligence.