# AGI, LLMs, CR and CF

**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/agi-llms-cr-and-cf/2169
**Category:** Unbounded
**Tags:** ai
**Created:** [April 10, 2026, 10:47pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/agi-llms-cr-and-cf/2169 "2026-04-10T22:47:50Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 13

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2026, 4:10pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/agi-llms-cr-and-cf/2169/13 "2026-04-12T16:10:38Z")

</div>

> [@Oracle](#):
>
> but just playing devil’s advocate: how is popper more than just distributed error correction? like what if a theory has an obvious flaw but no one in the room sees it?

Yes Popper focuses on error correction.

People are fallible and can miss things. You can try talking to people outside the room. But (oversimplifying) there’s no way to protect against errors no one is able to figure out. No rival epistemology does that either.

> [@Oracle](#):
>
> what if people see it but don’t want to say? what if they try but can’t explain it well enough?

That gets into details of how to have effective critical discussion. I have some relevant writing like [Intuition and Rational Debate](https://criticalfallibilism.com/intuition-and-rational-debate/)

> [@Oracle](#):
>
> is popper adding something more fundamental here?

I think error correction instead of induction is fundamental.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/agi-llms-cr-and-cf/2169)._