Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This analysis examines ontological commitments in AGI frameworks, highlighting implications for their foundational limits.
This paper examines the ontological commitments implicit in the two canonical formal frameworks of Artificial General Intelligence — AIXI and the Gödel Machine — using Quine's criterion of ontological commitment. We propose an ontological signature Ω(F) = ⟨α, ω, μ, ι⟩ characterizing each framework's presuppositions about agency, domain structure, internal states, and the formal criterion of intelligence. The central result is the Dichotomy of Universality (Theorem 4.10): normative universality (D1) is formally incompatible with both formal self-foundation (D2) and computational realizability (D3), partitioning the space of AGI frameworks into two irreconcilable blocks. AIXI satisfies D1 at the cost of incomputability (Turing barrier); the Gödel Machine satisfies D2∧D3 at the cost of incompleteness (Gödel barrier). We argue that the structural limits of each framework are not contingent technical deficiencies but necessary logical consequences of their ontological commitments — a thesis we term ontological determination. The dispute between AGI programs is therefore not merely technical, but grounded in inescapable ontological choices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Samuel G. da Silva (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: