agi

The battle for the future of AI has hit the courtroom! Elon Musk is suing Sam Altman and OpenAI, claiming they traded their "humanity first" mission for a $852B profit machine.
The Highlights:
* The Claim: Musk says OpenAI broke its non-profit promise to become a "closed-source" subsidiary of Microsoft.
* The Stakes: Musk is seeking $134 Billion in damages—but he won’t keep a dime. He wants the money returned to the non-profit foundation.
* The Goal: To remove Altman from leadership and force OpenAI back to its Open Source roots.
OpenAI’s Response: They’ve dismissed the suit as "competitive sabotage" driven by Musk’s rivalry with his own company, xAI.
The Bottom Line: This trial could derail OpenAI’s 2026 IPO and decide if AGI will be controlled by Big Tech or stay open for everyone.
Whose side are you on?
👍 #TeamElon – Save the original mission.
🔥 #TeamAltman – Innovation needs profit.
#ElonMusk #OpenAI #AI #BinanceSquare #CryptoNews #AGI
$BTC
$AI
$ETH

“I think it’s now. I think we’ve achieved AGI.” Those were the words of Jensen Huang on the Lex Fridman podcast, sending shockwaves through the AI community and reigniting the most consequential debate in artificial intelligence: has artificial general intelligence been achieved?
But Nvidia’s CEO purposely evaded any kind of rigorous explanation, research, or debate about what AGI actually means. His definition of AGI was pure hype: an AI system that can build a company worth $1 billion. Just that. Most AGI definitions tend to refer to matching a vast range of human cognitive skills. For Jensen Huang, implicitly, intelligence equates with scale. With larger models, more parameters, more data, and more compute, systems will become more capable. Under this view, intelligence is a byproduct of quantitative expansion.
The Scaling Hypothesis: Why Bigger AI Models Don’t Mean Smarter AI
We assume this approach has produced undeniable advances. Large-scale models display impressive performance across a wide range of tasks, often surpassing human benchmarks in narrow domains (Bommasani et al., 2021). However, we have pinpointed several times this underlying assumption as fragile: increasing capacity won’t produce generality.
The limitation is not simply practical, but structural. Scaling improves performance within known distributions, but does not guarantee coherent behavior outside them (Lake et al., 2017). It amplifies what is already present; it does not reorganize the system. As IBM’s research has emphasized, today’s LLMs still struggle with fundamental reasoning tasks: they predict, but they do not truly understand.
As a result, these systems often exhibit a familiar pattern: strong local competence combined with global inconsistency. They can solve complex problems, yet fail in simple ones. They can generalize in some contexts, yet collapse in others. The issue is not lack of capability, but lack of integration. This is precisely why the AGI scaling debate in 2026 has intensified: computation is physical, and scaling has hit diminishing returns.
Google DeepMind’s Cognitive Framework for Measuring AGI Progress
A second position, articulated in recent frameworks by Google DeepMind, defines intelligence as a multidimensional construct composed of cognitive faculties such as perception, memory, learning, reasoning, and metacognition. Much better…
Under this view, progress toward AGI can be measured by evaluating systems across a battery of tasks designed to probe each of these faculties (Burnell et al., 2026). But how are tasks designed? Are we training AI’s with the questions and answers they will face in the probes?

Source: Burnell, R. et al. (2026). Measuring Progress Toward AGI: A Cognitive Framework. Google DeepMind. View paper (PDF)
At least this approach acknowledges that intelligence is not a single scalar quantity, but a complex set of interacting abilities, grounded in decades of work in cognitive science (Carroll, 1993; Cattell, 1963).
Why Cognitive Profiles Alone Cannot Define Artificial General Intelligence
However, the limitation lies in how these faculties are treated. Although the framework recognizes their interaction, it ultimately evaluates them as separable components, building a “cognitive profile” of strengths and weaknesses.
This introduces a critical and surprising distortion.
Because intelligence is not the sum of faculties. It is what emerges when those faculties are organized under a unified dynamic. In fact, the g factor, as we explained in our first scientific foundational paper, shows a clear hierarchy. Components organize in layers!

Source: Sanchez, J. & Vivancos, D. (2024). Qubic AGI Journey: Human and Artificial Intelligence: Toward an AGI with Aigarth. View paper on ResearchGate
A system can score highly across multiple domains and still fail to behave intelligently in a general sense. Not because it lacks capabilities, but because those capabilities are not coherently integrated. The DeepMind framework explicitly avoids specifying how these processes are implemented, focusing instead on what the system can do. This makes it useful as a benchmarking tool, but insufficient as a theory of intelligence. Somehow it seems AI companies forget what we know about intelligence for a century: what it is, how to measure it, which are the components, domains, and their interactions.
The Weakest Link Problem: Why Average AI Performance Hides Critical Failures
The key issue is that performance is being measured, but organization is not.
And this leads to a deeper problem: the weakness of a system lies in the weakest link of its chain. A system can perform well on average while still failing systematically in specific dimensions such as context maintenance or stability. These failures are not marginal. They define the system.
A system that reasons but cannot maintain context, that learns but cannot transfer, that generates but cannot validate, is not partially intelligent. It is structurally limited. And this limitation does not appear in averaged profiles, because averaging masks the point of failure.
In real intelligence, there is no tolerance for internal discontinuity. The moment one component fails to integrate with the others, behavior ceases to be general and becomes local (Kovacs & Conway, 2016).
This is precisely the pattern observed in current AI systems: highly developed capabilities that are weakly coupled. As explored in our deep comparison of biological and artificial neural networks, the gap between pattern recognition and genuine cognitive integration remains vast.
Qubic’s Approach: Intelligence as Adaptive Organization Under Uncertainty
For Qubic/Aigarth/Neuraxon, intelligence is not defined by the number of capabilities a system has, nor by how well it performs on predefined tasks, but by how it behaves when it does not already know what to do. Because that’s the epitome of intelligence: what you do when you don’t know what to do.
In this sense, intelligence is fundamentally an adaptive process under uncertainty (Bereiter, 1995). This view aligns with classical definitions, where intelligence is understood as the capacity to solve novel problems, build internal models, and act upon them (Goertzel & Pennachin, 2007). But it extends them by emphasizing the substrate in which these processes occur.
Biological Evidence: The G Factor, Brain Networks, and Cognitive Integration
From this perspective, intelligence emerges from the organization of the system, not from its components. Biological evidence supports this shift. The general intelligence factor (g) is not explained by isolated cognitive modules, but by the efficiency and integration of large-scale brain networks (Jung & Haier, 2007; Basten et al., 2015). Intelligence correlates more strongly with patterns of connectivity and coordinated activity than with the performance of individual regions.
Our research on the fruit fly connectome further reinforces this principle: even in the simplest complete brain map ever produced, intelligence begins with architecture. The connectome of Drosophila demonstrates that part of intelligence may reside in structure even before learning occurs.
Aigarth and Multi-Neuraxon: Brain-Inspired AI Architecture for True AGI
Architectures such as Aigarth and Multi-Neuraxon attempt to operationalize this idea. Instead of maximizing scale or enumerating capabilities, they focus on how multiple interacting units (Spheres, oscillatory channels, and dynamic gating mechanisms) can produce coherent behavior across contexts (Sanchez & Vivancos, 2024).
In these systems, intelligence is not predefined. It is not encoded in modules or evaluated as a checklist of abilities. It emerges from the interaction between components that are themselves adaptive, temporally structured, and mutually constrained. As we explore in the Neuraxon Intelligence Academy, these networks incorporate neuromodulation, multi-timescale plasticity, and astrocytic gating, principles drawn directly from neuroscience, to create systems with internal ecology rather than mere computational power.
Importantly, this approach directly addresses the problem ignored by the other two: integration. The question of AI consciousness vs. intelligence further illuminates this distinction: a system that integrates multiple scales, maintains dynamic stability, and evolves without losing coherence provides a far stronger foundation for general intelligence.
Conclusion: Why the AGI Debate Must Move Beyond Hype and Benchmarks
Because in an organized system, failure in one component propagates through the whole. That is why neither Jensen Huang’s economic definition nor DeepMind’s cognitive profiling captures the essence of artificial general intelligence. The path to AGI does not run through larger GPU clusters or longer checklists of cognitive abilities. It runs through the fundamental reorganization of how AI systems are built: from optimization to organization.
We must move from optimization (LLMs) to organization (Aigarth). We strongly believe this is one of the most relevant shifts in the future of artificial intelligence.
Scientific References
Basten, U., Hilger, K., & Fiebach, C. J. (2015). Where smart brains are different: A quantitative meta-analysis of functional and structural brain imaging studies on intelligence. Intelligence, 51, 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.04.009Bereiter, C. (1995). A dispositional view of transfer. Teaching for Transfer: Fostering Generalization in Learning, 21–34.Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., et al. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07258Burnell, R., Yamamori, Y., Firat, O., et al. (2026). Measuring Progress Toward AGI: A Cognitive Framework. Google DeepMind. View paperCarroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571312Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 1–22.Goertzel, B., & Pennachin, C. (2007). Artificial General Intelligence. Springer.Jung, R. E., & Haier, R. J. (2007). The Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory (P-FIT) of intelligence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07001185Kovacs, K., & Conway, A. R. A. (2016). Process overlap theory: A unified account of the general factor of intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 27(3), 151–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1153946Lake, B. M., Ullman, T. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Gershman, S. J. (2017). Building machines that learn and think like people. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e253. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16001837Sanchez, J., & Vivancos, D. (2024). Qubic AGI Journey: Human and Artificial Intelligence: Toward an AGI with Aigarth. Preprint. View on ResearchGate
#Qubic #AGI #artificialintelligence #CryptoAi #INNOVATION

Artificial General Intelligence, or AGI, represents the next milestone in the evolution of artificial intelligence. Unlike narrow AI, which excels at specific tasks like voice recognition or image classification, AGI aspires to replicate the versatility of human intelligence — thinking, reasoning, and adapting across a wide range of challenges.

But is it truly possible for a machine to think like a human?

Supporters of AGI envision a future where machines can understand complex ideas, learn continuously, and solve problems much like humans do. If achieved, AGI could revolutionize nearly every aspect of society — from science and medicine to education and the economy. However, replicating the depth and flexibility of the human mind remains one of the most complex scientific challenges of our time.

A major point of contention in the AGI debate is whether machines can or should be conscious or self-aware. Some researchers argue that without these human traits, AGI can never truly replicate human thinking. Others maintain that even without consciousness, an AGI that behaves like a human is sufficient to achieve its purpose.

As progress continues, we are also confronted with profound ethical dilemmas. What rights, if any, should AGI have? How do we ensure these systems act in humanity’s best interests? And most importantly — who gets to decide how AGI is used?

AGI could become one of humanity’s greatest achievements, but it could also pose serious risks if left unchecked. Issues like decision-making autonomy, privacy invasion, and unintended consequences must be addressed as the technology evolves.
In summary, while the potential of AGI is immense, we must approach its development thoughtfully and responsibly. Whether AGI can ever truly think like a human remains uncertain — but its impact on our future is undeniable.

#AGI

"The countdown has begun": Sam Altman sets the date for the "end of the old world"! Are we ready for the 2028 deluge? 🤖⏳🚨

This is no longer science fiction or conspiracy theory... Today it's 2026, and Sam Altman (the godfather of OpenAI) is dropping a time bomb in the world's face: "Super Intelligence" is not a distant dream... It will be knocking on the door in late 2028!

The evolution of AI is no longer confined to screens — it’s stepping into the physical world. @Fabric Foundation is positioning itself at the center of this transformation by supporting open robotics infrastructure designed to power real-world intelligent machines. From autonomous retail assistants to warehouse automation, embodied AI is redefining how industries operate.
At the heart of this growing ecosystem is $ROBO , a token that connects community participation with technological progress. Rather than focusing solely on speculation, $ROBO represents alignment — builders, researchers, and supporters working together to accelerate open robotics development. Strong ecosystems are built when innovation and community move in sync.
Open collaboration lowers barriers, speeds experimentation, and drives faster iteration in robotics and AGI systems. As adoption increases, initiatives like @Fabric Foundation demonstrate how decentralized communities can contribute to shaping the future of intelligent machines in meaningful ways.
The robotics era is just beginning — and #ROBO symbolizes the shared momentum behind open, embodied AI.
#ROBO #OpenRobotics #AI #AGI #Web3 #Innovation #Robotics

Written by Qubic Scientific Team

How Information Flows in Traditional Artificial Neural Networks
In the artificial intelligence models we know, information enters, is encoded, is transformed through algebraic matrices, and produces outputs. Even in the most advanced architectures such as transformers, the principle is the same: the signal passes through a series of well-defined operations within a structured system. The model functions as a directed processing circuit, from left to right, input-output, or from right to left, through backpropagation for adjustments and training.
The results, as we well know, are spectacular. By working over millions of language parameters, AI is capable of giving magnificent answers, along with some hallucinations, however. But if the goal is not to process inputs and produce outputs, but to build systems capable of maintaining an internal dynamics, adapting continuously, reorganizing themselves, regulating their learning, and sustaining intelligence as a property of the tissue, current AI falls short.
Although people sometimes speak of language models as imitations of the brain, in reality this is more of a comparative metaphor than a simulation of computational neuroscience. Biological systems do not handle information from left to right and vice versa. Information propagates through a network, feeds back on itself, and also oscillates, is dampened, or is reinforced depending on the context.

Fig 1. Left-right information flow in traditional artificial neural networks
Not Only Neurons: The Role of Astrocytes in Brain Function and Synaptic Plasticity
We usually associate cognition and intelligence with the functioning of neurons, their receptors, and neurotransmitters. But they are not the only cells in the nervous system. For a long time, astrocytes were considered nervous system cells devoted to support, cleaning, nutrition, and stability of the environment. Today we know that they actively participate in regulation; in fact, a term is used: tripartite synapse, in which they actively participate by detecting neurotransmitters, integrating signals from multiple synapses, modulating plasticity, and modifying the functional efficacy of the circuit.
A living network is not composed only of neurons that fire, but also of astrocytes that regulate how, when, and how much the system changes. In biology, computing is not only about emitting a signal but also about modulating the terrain where that signal will have an effect. Recent research has demonstrated that astrocytes can perform normalization operations analogous to self-attention mechanisms found in transformer architectures — linking astrocyte–neuron interactions directly to attention-like computation in artificial intelligence systems.

Fig. 2 Biological astrocytes and tripartite synapse 
Astrocytic Gating in Neuraxon: Bio-Inspired Neural Network Architecture
Neuraxon is an architecture that tries to recover and emulate the functioning of the brain and to compute functional properties that classical artificial networks have oversimplified.
As we have explained in previous volumes of this academy, Neuraxon does not work only with input, output, and hidden neurons in the conventional sense. It introduces units with states that emulate excitatory, inhibitory, or neutral potentials (-1, 0, +1). In addition, it does so within a continuous TEMPORAL dynamics where we take into account context and the recent history of activation. The network is no longer a sum of layers but resembles more a system with internal physiology. For deeper context on how these foundational elements work, see NIA Volume 1: Why Intelligence Is Not Computed in Steps, but in Time and NIA Volume 2: Ternary Dynamics as a Model of Living Intelligence.
We have explained how Neuraxon models transmission through fast, slow, and neuromodulatory receptors — a mechanism explored in depth in NIA Volume 3: Neuromodulation and Brain-Inspired AI. But now we also model the regulation of plasticity through astrocytic gating.
How Astrocyte-Gated Multi-Timescale Plasticity (AGMP) Works
Astrocytic gating introduces a gate inspired by the role of astrocytes in the tripartite synapse. The idea is to introduce a local, slow, and contextual filter that determines when a synaptic modification should be opened, dampened, or blocked. It is as if the system can consider whether there is permission for a change. This approach directly addresses the stability-plasticity dilemma, one of the most fundamental challenges in continual learning for neural networks.
Eligibility Traces and Local Synaptic Memory
How does it work? Through a kind of eligibility trace. It is a local memory that says, "something relevant has happened at this synapse." It is updated with a decay over time and with a function between presynaptic and postsynaptic activity. That is: the synapse accumulates local evidence of temporal coincidence or causality. From there, there is a global broadcast-type signal, such as an error, a possible reward, or something dopamine-like. The astrocytic gate selects whether the neuron is in a learning state. In future versions, astrocytes could modulate thousands of synapses if this provides a computational advantage.
This approach is consistent with recent advances in neuromorphic computing, including the Astrocyte-Gated Multi-Timescale Plasticity (AGMP) framework proposed for spiking neural networks, which similarly augments eligibility-trace learning with a slow astrocyte state that gates synaptic updates — yielding a four-factor learning rule (eligibility × modulatory signal × astrocytic gate × stabilization).
Endogenous Regulation: Why Neuraxon Is More Than a Conventional Neural Network
Neuraxon within QUBIC does not compete in scale or task performance. It works through an architecture with endogenous regulation. By incorporating astrocytic principles, it begins to behave like a network with internal ecology. That is: a system where it matters not only which units are activated, but which domains of the tissue are plastic, which are stabilized, which areas are damping noise, which are consolidating regularities, and which are preparing to reorganize themselves. For a comprehensive overview of how biological and artificial neural networks compare, see NIA Volume 4: Neural Networks in AI and Neuroscience.
For Aigarth and QUBIC, the goal is not to accumulate more parameters, but to introduce more levels of functional organization within the system.
Why Astrocytic Gating Matters for Aigarth and Decentralized AI
Aigarth is not a static model but an evolutionary tissue through an architecture capable of growing, mutating, pruning, generating functional offspring, and reorganizing its topology under adaptive pressures. In that context, Neuraxon contributes something: a rich computational microphysiology for the units that inhabit that tissue.
This has implications for robustness, adaptability, and memory. Also for scalability. In large architectures, the problem is not only that there are many units, but how to coordinate which parts of the system are available for reconfiguration and which must maintain stability.
In roadmap terms for QUBIC, the goal is to build systems where intelligence emerges not only from neuronal computation, but also from the coupling between fast processing, slow modulation, and structural evolution. You can explore these dynamics firsthand with the interactive Neuraxon 3D simulation on HuggingFace Spaces, where you can build, configure, and simulate a Neuraxon 2.0 network from scratch.
Fig 3. Neuraxon astrocytes gating - AGMP formulation
Scientific References
Allen, N. J., & Eroglu, C. (2017). Cell biology of astrocyte-synapse interactions. Neuron, 96(3), 697–708.Halassa, M. M., Fellin, T., & Haydon, P. G. (2007). The tripartite synapse: Roles for gliotransmission in health and disease. Trends in Molecular Medicine, 13(2), 54–63.Kofuji, P., & Araque, A. (2021). Astrocytes and behavior. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 44, 49–67.=Perea, G., Navarrete, M., & Araque, A. (2009). Tripartite synapses: Astrocytes process and control synaptic information. Trends in Neurosciences, 32(8), 421–431.Woodburn, R. L., Bollinger, J. A., & Wohleb, E. S. (2021). Synaptic and behavioral effects of astrocyte activation. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 15, 645267.=Vivancos, D. & Sanchez, J. (2026). Neuraxon v2.0: A New Neural Growth & Computation Blueprint. ResearchGate Preprint.
Explore the Full Neuraxon Intelligence Academy
This is Volume 5 of the Neuraxon Intelligence Academy by the Qubic Scientific Team. If you are just joining us, explore the complete series to build a full understanding of the science behind Neuraxon and Qubic's approach to brain-inspired, decentralized artificial intelligence:
NIA Volume 1: Why Intelligence Is Not Computed in Steps, but in Time — Explores why biological intelligence operates in continuous time rather than discrete computational steps like traditional LLMs.NIA Volume 2: Ternary Dynamics as a Model of Living Intelligence — Explains ternary dynamics and why three-state logic (excitatory, neutral, inhibitory) matters for modeling living systems.NIA Volume 3: Neuromodulation and Brain-Inspired AI — Covers neuromodulation and how the brain's chemical signaling (dopamine, serotonin, acetylcholine, norepinephrine) inspires Neuraxon's architecture.NIA Volume 4: Neural Networks in AI and Neuroscience — A deep comparison of biological neural networks, artificial neural networks, and Neuraxon's third-path approach.
Qubic is a decentralized, open-source network for experimental technology. To learn more, visit qubic.org
#Qubic #AGI #Neuraxon #academy #decentralized