Since 2021, China has reportedly poured $100bn into support for AI datacentres. Since 2021, China has reportedly poured $100bn into support for AI datacentres. Beijing's AI policy is focused on real-life applications but Chinese companies are beginning to articulate their own grand visions S tanding on stage in the eastern China tech hub of Hangzhou, Alibaba's normally media-shy CEO made an attention-grabbing announcement. "The world today is witnessing the dawn of an AI-driven intelligent revolution," Eddie Wu told a developer conference in September. " Artificial general intelligence (AGI) will not only amplify human intelligence but also unlock human potential, paving the way for the arrival of artificial superintelligence (ASI)."

Machine Learning (ML) has been a foundational topic in artificial intelligence (AI), providing both theoretical groundwork and practical tools for its exciting advancements. From ResNet for visual recognition to Transformer for vision-language alignment, the AI models have achieved superior capability to humans. Furthermore, the scaling law has enabled AI to initially develop general intelligence, as demonstrated by Large Language Models (LLMs). To this stage, AI has had an enormous influence on society and yet still keeps shaping the future for humanity. However, distribution shift remains a persistent ``Achilles' heel'', fundamentally limiting the reliability and general usefulness of ML systems. Moreover, generalization under distribution shift would also cause trust issues for AIs. Motivated by these challenges, my research focuses on \textit{Trustworthy Machine Learning under Distribution Shifts}, with the goal of expanding AI's robustness, versatility, as well as its responsibility and reliability. We carefully study the three common distribution shifts into: (1) Perturbation Shift, (2) Domain Shift, and (3) Modality Shift. For all scenarios, we also rigorously investigate trustworthiness via three aspects: (1) Robustness, (2) Explainability, and (3) Adaptability. Based on these dimensions, we propose effective solutions and fundamental insights, meanwhile aiming to enhance the critical ML problems, such as efficiency, adaptability, and safety.

In recent years we observed rapid and significant advancements in artificial intelligence (A.I.). So much so that many wonder how close humanity is to developing an A.I. model that can achieve human level of intelligence, also known as artificial general intelligence (A.G.I.). In this work we look at this question and we attempt to define the upper bounds, not just of A.I., but rather of any machine-computable process (a.k.a. an algorithm). To answer this question however, one must first precisely define A.G.I. We borrow prior work's definition of A.G.I. [1] that best describes the sentiment of the term, as used by the leading developers of A.I. That is, the ability to be creative and innovate in some field of study in a way that unlocks new and previously unknown functional capabilities in that field. Based on this definition we draw new bounds on the limits of computation. We formally prove that no algorithm can demonstrate new functional capabilities that were not already present in the initial algorithm itself. Therefore, no algorithm (and thus no A.I. model) can be truly creative in any field of study, whether that is science, engineering, art, sports, etc. In contrast, A.I. models can demonstrate existing functional capabilities, as well as combinations and permutations of existing functional capabilities. We conclude this work by discussing the implications of this proof both as it regards to the future of A.I. development, as well as to what it means for the origins of human intelligence.

Recent approaches to evaluating Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) typically summarize a system's capability using the arithmetic mean of its proficiencies across multiple cognitive domains. While simple, this implicitly assumes compensability: exceptional performance in some areas can offset severe deficiencies in others. Genuine general intelligence, however, requires coherent sufficiency: balanced competence across all essential faculties. We introduce a coherence-based measure of AGI that integrates the generalized mean over a continuum of compensability exponents. This yields an area-under-the-curve (AUC) metric spanning arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic regimes, quantifying how robust an evaluated capability remains as compensability assumptions become stricter. Unlike the arithmetic mean, which rewards specialization, the AUC penalizes imbalance and exposes bottlenecks that constrain performance. To illustrate the framework, we apply it to cognitive profiles derived from the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model, showing how coherence-based aggregation highlights imbalances that are obscured by arithmetic averaging. As a second, independent example, we apply the same methodology to a set of 17 heterogeneous benchmarks, demonstrating how coherence-based evaluation can reveal unevenness even in narrower task collections. These examples show that the proposed approach offers a principled, interpretable, and stricter foundation for measuring progress toward AGI.

A key feature differentiating artificial general intelligence (AGI) from traditional AI is that AGI can perform composite tasks that require a wide range of capabilities. Although embodied agents powered by multimodal large language models (MLLMs) offer rich perceptual and interactive capabilities, it remains largely unexplored whether they can solve composite tasks. In the current work, we designed a set of composite tasks inspired by common daily activities observed in early childhood development. Within a dynamic and simulated home environment, these tasks span three core domains: object understanding, spatial intelligence, and social activity. We evaluated 17 leading proprietary and open-source MLLMs on these tasks. The results consistently showed poor performance across all three domains, indicating a substantial gap between current capabilities and general intelligence requirements. Together, our tasks offer a preliminary framework for evaluating the general capabilities of embodied agents, marking an early but significant step toward the development of embodied MLLMs and their real-world deployment.

Everyone is obsessed with artificial general intelligence--the stage when AI can match all feats of human cognition. The guy who named it saw it as a threat. In the summer of 1956, a group of academics--now we'd call them computer scientists but there was no such thing then--met on Dartmouth College campus in New Hampshire to discuss how to make machines think like humans. One of them, John McCarthy, coined the term "artificial intelligence." This legendary meeting and the naming of a new field, is well known.

Scalable oversight, the process by which weaker AI systems supervise stronger ones, has been proposed as a key strategy to control future superintelligent systems. However, it is still unclear how scalable oversight itself scales. To address this gap, we propose a framework that quantifies the probability of successful oversight as a function of the capabilities of the overseer and the system being overseen. Specifically, our framework models oversight as a game between capability-mismatched players; the players have oversight-specific Elo scores that are a piecewise-linear function of their general intelligence, with two plateaus corresponding to task incompetence and task saturation. We validate our framework with a modified version of the game Nim and then apply it to four oversight games: Mafia, Debate, Backdoor Code and Wargames. For each game, we find scaling laws that approximate how domain performance depends on general AI system capability. We then build on our findings in a theoretical study of Nested Scalable Oversight (NSO), a process in which trusted models oversee untrusted stronger models, which then become the trusted models in the next step. We identify conditions under which NSO succeeds and derive numerically (and in some cases analytically) the optimal number of oversight levels to maximize the probability of oversight success. We also apply our theory to our four oversight games, where we find that NSO success rates at a general Elo gap of 400 are 13.5% for Mafia, 51.7% for Debate, 10.0% for Backdoor Code, and 9.4% for Wargames; these rates decline further when overseeing stronger systems.

Integrating visual-language instructions into visuomotor policies is gaining momentum in robot learning for enhancing open-world generalization. Despite promising advances, existing approaches face two challenges: limited language steerability when no generated reasoning is used as a condition, or significant inference latency when reasoning is incorporated. In this work, we introduce MoTVLA, a mixture-of-transformers (MoT)-based vision-language-action (VLA) model that integrates fast-slow unified reasoning with behavior policy learning. MoTVLA preserves the general intelligence of pre-trained VLMs (serving as the generalist) for tasks such as perception, scene understanding, and semantic planning, while incorporating a domain expert, a second transformer that shares knowledge with the pretrained VLM, to generate domain-specific fast reasoning (e.g., robot motion decomposition), thereby improving policy execution efficiency. By conditioning the action expert on decomposed motion instructions, MoTVLA can learn diverse behaviors and substantially improve language steerability. Extensive evaluations across natural language processing benchmarks, robotic simulation environments, and real-world experiments confirm the superiority of MoTVLA in both fast-slow reasoning and manipulation task performance.

We argue that progress toward AGI is theory limited rather than data or scale limited. Building on the critical rationalism of Popper and Deutsch, we challenge the Platonic Representation Hypothesis. Observationally equivalent worlds can diverge under interventions, so observational adequacy alone cannot guarantee interventional competence. We begin by laying foundations, definitions of knowledge, learning, intelligence, counterfactual competence and AGI, and then analyze the limits of observational learning that motivate an error centric shift. We recast the problem as three questions about how explicit and implicit errors evolve under an agent's actions, which errors are unreachable within a fixed hypothesis space, and how conjecture and criticism expand that space. From these questions we propose Causal Mechanics, a mechanisms first program in which hypothesis space change is a first class operation and probabilistic structure is used when useful rather than presumed. We advance structural principles that make error discovery and correction tractable, including a differential Locality and Autonomy Principle for modular interventions, a gauge invariant form of Independent Causal Mechanisms for separability, and the Compositional Autonomy Principle for analogy preservation, together with actionable diagnostics. The aim is a scaffold for systems that can convert unreachable errors into reachable ones and correct them.

Contemporary AGI evaluations report multidomain capability profiles, yet they typically assign symmetric weights and rely on snapshot scores. This creates two problems: (i) equal weighting treats all domains as equally important when human intelligence research suggests otherwise, and (ii) snapshot testing can't distinguish durable capabilities from brittle performances that collapse under delay or stress. I argue that general intelligence -- in humans and potentially in machines -- is better understood as a homeostatic property cluster: a set of abilities plus the mechanisms that keep those abilities co-present under perturbation. On this view, AGI evaluation should weight domains by their causal centrality (their contribution to cluster stability) and require evidence of persistence across sessions. I propose two battery-compatible extensions: a centrality-prior score that imports CHC-derived weights with transparent sensitivity analysis, and a Cluster Stability Index family that separates profile persistence, durable learning, and error correction. These additions preserve multidomain breadth while reducing brittleness and gaming. I close with testable predictions and black-box protocols labs can adopt without architectural access.