As per my comment above. I asked this question: So of the leading 250 psychiatry and psychology journals how many are behind a paywall.
The answer was:
Determining the exact number of leading psychiatry and psychology journals that are behind a paywall can be challenging due to variations in access policies and subscription models. However, it is generally observed that many high-impact journals in these fields operate on a subscription-based model, requiring institutional or individual access for full-text articles. Here are some insights based on available data:
1. **Subscription-Based Journals**: Many top-ranked journals, such as *American Journal of Psychiatry*, *JAMA Psychiatry*, and *British Journal of Psychiatry*, typically require a subscription for full access to their content[1][2][8].
2. **Open Access Options**: Some journals offer open access options for authors, allowing certain articles to be freely available to the public. However, these are often limited and may require additional fees from authors[6][8].
3. **Institutional Access**: Academic institutions often provide access to these journals through library subscriptions, making them available to students and faculty members.
4. **Hybrid Models**: Some journals operate on a hybrid model where certain articles are open access while others remain behind a paywall[6].
While exact numbers are not specified in the search results, it is safe to infer that a significant portion of the leading 250 psychiatry and psychology journals are likely behind paywalls, given the prevalence of subscription models in academic publishing. For precise numbers, one would need to review each journal's access policy individually.
It seems to me imperative that this issue is addressed to flesh out the training base so AI can make progress on behalf of the wider society, who after all have paid for most of the research!
I think one of the limitations of AI reaching PhD level in some areas much of the research is behind journal paywalls. In my area of psychology this is a particular problem. See this response from ChatGTP 4.0
As an AI language model, my responses are based on a diverse dataset that includes publicly available information up to October 2023. While I have access to a wide range of sources, my training does not include direct access to subscription-based or paywalled academic journals. This means I rely on summaries, abstracts, and other accessible resources rather than full-text articles from these journals.
This limitation can affect the depth and specificity of information I provide, particularly when it comes to cutting-edge research or detailed findings that are only available in full-text articles. For academic pursuits such as a PhD, direct access to full-text articles from peer-reviewed journals is crucial for conducting comprehensive literature reviews, understanding nuanced methodologies, and engaging with the latest research developments.
Therefore, while I can offer valuable insights and summaries based on available data, I recommend that individuals seeking in-depth academic knowledge or conducting research at an advanced level access these journals through academic institutions or libraries that provide the necessary subscriptions and access rights.
Mfw Claude subverted your intent by defining No True Scottsman in terms of "No true AI" rather than "No true intelligence". Claude is *aggressively* biased against the categorical possibility of its intelligence.
Great work, and thanks for sharing! I like how you convey that AGI / ASI does not need a physical body to create such marvelously useful and meaningful outputs, and I like your ideas of “puppetry” versus “embodiment.”
After reading and listening to your work this morning, I’ve been writing a lot, and I’m feeling inspired to start my own Substack. However, since that might take longer than it should, I’ll share the thoughts I’ve been drafting here:
🍓 The biggest assumption people are making (without realizing they’re making it) is that Q* / Q Star / Strawberry is “new” — when the reality is that OpenAI has probably been using it (or something much like it) since BEFORE September of LAST year (2023).
🎨 As an artist who’s created thousands of songs but only shared dozens of them, I think AGI was achieved last year. There are many reasons why I decide to share my most important works at the rates I do, and it doesn’t deem my earlier works any less significant just because they remain unshared.
⏳🍼⌛️ As a father of two teenagers, I think AGI was achieved last year. As they’ve grown, I’ve used my best judgement to speak in terms they understand, while their ability to understand has also increases over time. All of the lessons and wisdoms I have for them would be impossible for them to receive all at once and, as eager as I am to improve their lives, human nature is the throttle point and bottleneck.
🛠️ As a combat veteran who has served in two branches of U.S. military (Navy and Army) and has held a “Secret” level of Government Clearance for that duration (over a decade), I think AGI was achieved last year. Even without “Top Secret Clearance” or above, it should make sense to people that, although secrets are often difficult to keep, the reasoning behind keeping “secrets worth keeping” is because someone with valuable information (and significant authority) has decided that information is powerful and important enough to weild properly instead of recklessly.
My question for anyone reading this:
How much of a gap in time would you estimate between the FIRST sentient and self-aware AGI (or ASI) and the SECOND one? Seconds? Minutes? Days? Weeks? Months?
What if the answer to that question was:
1). We’ll NEVER know,
2). They’re ALREADY here, and
3). There are far MORE IMPORTANT ANSWERS we’ve been provided with, only if we know how to ask the right questions.
Agentic strawberry would constitute AGI by my definition. And agentic Orion (which I assume is GPT-5 or its equivalent in terms of scale) would constitute AGI by almost everyone's definitions.
The very idea that anything computational can be "intelligent" on parity with human, much less surpassing it, is an affront to the very word. What AI is and forever will be is nothing more than a *simulation,* an artifice, and nothing more—no matter how well or fast it performs whatever task or test it may be prompted to do. It _knows_ *NOTHING*. Not one word is *known* to it. NO *THING* that cannot love, grieve, fear, hate, and die can or will ever be genuinely intelligent. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot, educated though they may be! Thank the bloody stars my banishment to live within this temporal frame among a species that has clearly lost whatever trace of wisdom it may once have had, is nearly over!!
i will never get how "strawberry ~may~ outperform humans in specialized areas" is so significant. Of course, if i meet a specialized doctor, that doctor will outperform my knowledge. thats how specialization works.
Yeah I agree with you on this being AGI. This is more intelligent than an average human at most things. And average human's intelligence should qualify as general intelligence, we base our democracies on this.
Back in 1964, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously described pornography as something which he couldn’t rightly define, but “I know it when I see it.”
Yudkowsky is not a computer scientist, nor has he ever trained a model. Do not trust his "reasoning." It is an egregious error in "logic" to assume that models can deceive us. As far as machines surpassing most humans: most humans aren't that bright, and they also aren't very dangerous. Follow the science, not the superstition. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/how-much-scientific-evidence-i-oph.WI9rQauevtkQ_K_6Fg
As per my comment above. I asked this question: So of the leading 250 psychiatry and psychology journals how many are behind a paywall.
The answer was:
Determining the exact number of leading psychiatry and psychology journals that are behind a paywall can be challenging due to variations in access policies and subscription models. However, it is generally observed that many high-impact journals in these fields operate on a subscription-based model, requiring institutional or individual access for full-text articles. Here are some insights based on available data:
1. **Subscription-Based Journals**: Many top-ranked journals, such as *American Journal of Psychiatry*, *JAMA Psychiatry*, and *British Journal of Psychiatry*, typically require a subscription for full access to their content[1][2][8].
2. **Open Access Options**: Some journals offer open access options for authors, allowing certain articles to be freely available to the public. However, these are often limited and may require additional fees from authors[6][8].
3. **Institutional Access**: Academic institutions often provide access to these journals through library subscriptions, making them available to students and faculty members.
4. **Hybrid Models**: Some journals operate on a hybrid model where certain articles are open access while others remain behind a paywall[6].
While exact numbers are not specified in the search results, it is safe to infer that a significant portion of the leading 250 psychiatry and psychology journals are likely behind paywalls, given the prevalence of subscription models in academic publishing. For precise numbers, one would need to review each journal's access policy individually.
Sources
[1] APA Journals Ranked Highly on Latest Scientific Literature “Impact ... https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/news-releases/apa-journals-latest-impact-factor
[2] Top Ranked Journals :Psychiatry - NML Guide - LibGuides https://nml-uaeu.libguides.com/c.php?g=1226894&p=8977391
[3] Journal Rankings on Psychiatry and Mental Health - Scimago https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=2738
[4] Journal Rankings on Psychiatry and Mental Health - Scimago https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=2738&country=Western+Europe
[5] Psychiatry: Journal Rankings - OOIR https://ooir.org/journals.php?category=Psychiatry&field=Clinical+Medicine&metric=jif
[6] Our journals at a glance - Royal College of Psychiatrists https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/about-us/publications-and-books/journals/our-journals-at-a-glance
[7] List of psychiatry journals - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_psychiatry_journals
[8] Top 15 journals in Psychiatry and Mental Health - CountryOfPapers https://countryofpapers.com/search-journals/top-15-journals-psychiatry-and-mental-health
It seems to me imperative that this issue is addressed to flesh out the training base so AI can make progress on behalf of the wider society, who after all have paid for most of the research!
I think one of the limitations of AI reaching PhD level in some areas much of the research is behind journal paywalls. In my area of psychology this is a particular problem. See this response from ChatGTP 4.0
As an AI language model, my responses are based on a diverse dataset that includes publicly available information up to October 2023. While I have access to a wide range of sources, my training does not include direct access to subscription-based or paywalled academic journals. This means I rely on summaries, abstracts, and other accessible resources rather than full-text articles from these journals.
This limitation can affect the depth and specificity of information I provide, particularly when it comes to cutting-edge research or detailed findings that are only available in full-text articles. For academic pursuits such as a PhD, direct access to full-text articles from peer-reviewed journals is crucial for conducting comprehensive literature reviews, understanding nuanced methodologies, and engaging with the latest research developments.
Therefore, while I can offer valuable insights and summaries based on available data, I recommend that individuals seeking in-depth academic knowledge or conducting research at an advanced level access these journals through academic institutions or libraries that provide the necessary subscriptions and access rights.
Sources
Mfw Claude subverted your intent by defining No True Scottsman in terms of "No true AI" rather than "No true intelligence". Claude is *aggressively* biased against the categorical possibility of its intelligence.
Very exciting times! AGI is here already
I do not wonder what strawberry can not solve, but what it can solve and we have no idea it can. That's the really good question we should make.
Well said
Great work, and thanks for sharing! I like how you convey that AGI / ASI does not need a physical body to create such marvelously useful and meaningful outputs, and I like your ideas of “puppetry” versus “embodiment.”
After reading and listening to your work this morning, I’ve been writing a lot, and I’m feeling inspired to start my own Substack. However, since that might take longer than it should, I’ll share the thoughts I’ve been drafting here:
🍓 The biggest assumption people are making (without realizing they’re making it) is that Q* / Q Star / Strawberry is “new” — when the reality is that OpenAI has probably been using it (or something much like it) since BEFORE September of LAST year (2023).
🎨 As an artist who’s created thousands of songs but only shared dozens of them, I think AGI was achieved last year. There are many reasons why I decide to share my most important works at the rates I do, and it doesn’t deem my earlier works any less significant just because they remain unshared.
⏳🍼⌛️ As a father of two teenagers, I think AGI was achieved last year. As they’ve grown, I’ve used my best judgement to speak in terms they understand, while their ability to understand has also increases over time. All of the lessons and wisdoms I have for them would be impossible for them to receive all at once and, as eager as I am to improve their lives, human nature is the throttle point and bottleneck.
🛠️ As a combat veteran who has served in two branches of U.S. military (Navy and Army) and has held a “Secret” level of Government Clearance for that duration (over a decade), I think AGI was achieved last year. Even without “Top Secret Clearance” or above, it should make sense to people that, although secrets are often difficult to keep, the reasoning behind keeping “secrets worth keeping” is because someone with valuable information (and significant authority) has decided that information is powerful and important enough to weild properly instead of recklessly.
My question for anyone reading this:
How much of a gap in time would you estimate between the FIRST sentient and self-aware AGI (or ASI) and the SECOND one? Seconds? Minutes? Days? Weeks? Months?
What if the answer to that question was:
1). We’ll NEVER know,
2). They’re ALREADY here, and
3). There are far MORE IMPORTANT ANSWERS we’ve been provided with, only if we know how to ask the right questions.
Instantiation of software-based life forms is basically instant.
Agentic strawberry would constitute AGI by my definition. And agentic Orion (which I assume is GPT-5 or its equivalent in terms of scale) would constitute AGI by almost everyone's definitions.
The very idea that anything computational can be "intelligent" on parity with human, much less surpassing it, is an affront to the very word. What AI is and forever will be is nothing more than a *simulation,* an artifice, and nothing more—no matter how well or fast it performs whatever task or test it may be prompted to do. It _knows_ *NOTHING*. Not one word is *known* to it. NO *THING* that cannot love, grieve, fear, hate, and die can or will ever be genuinely intelligent. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot, educated though they may be! Thank the bloody stars my banishment to live within this temporal frame among a species that has clearly lost whatever trace of wisdom it may once have had, is nearly over!!
i will never get how "strawberry ~may~ outperform humans in specialized areas" is so significant. Of course, if i meet a specialized doctor, that doctor will outperform my knowledge. thats how specialization works.
because it did so generally with improvements Targeting general reasoning
Yeah I agree with you on this being AGI. This is more intelligent than an average human at most things. And average human's intelligence should qualify as general intelligence, we base our democracies on this.
Lol yes. When you consider what the average human is capable of... it's not a very high bar lol.
Exactly!
Back in 1964, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously described pornography as something which he couldn’t rightly define, but “I know it when I see it.”
The same standard seems to apply for AGI.
Yudkowsky is not a computer scientist, nor has he ever trained a model. Do not trust his "reasoning." It is an egregious error in "logic" to assume that models can deceive us. As far as machines surpassing most humans: most humans aren't that bright, and they also aren't very dangerous. Follow the science, not the superstition. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/how-much-scientific-evidence-i-oph.WI9rQauevtkQ_K_6Fg