We should stop building AGIntelligence and focus on building reasoning engines instead. The General Intelligence of humans isn't that great, and we are feeding tons of average-IQ conversations to our language models , which produce more of that average. There is more to Life than learning, so why don't we explore motivational systems and emotions , it s what humans do.

Hey, we were featured in this article! How cool is that!

> I’m not going to be like one of those spoiled children on Hackernews who could be handed a golden-egg laying goose and still spend all their time complaining about how loud its quacks are.

If it was, they would have released it. Another problem is the definition is not well defined. Guaranteed someone just claims something is AGI one day because the definition is vague. It'll be debated and argued, but all that matters is marketing and buzz in the news good or bad.

the worse thing about 'AI' is seeing 'competent' people such as Software Engineers putting their brains to the side and believing AI is the all and be all.

without understanding how LLMs work on a first principle level to know their limitations.

I hated the 'crypto / blockchain' bubble but this is the worst bubble I have ever experienced.

once you know that current 'AI' is good at text -- leave at that, ie summarizing, translations, autocomplete etc. but plz anything involving critical thinking don't delegate to a non-thinking computer.

I've been confused with the AI discourse for a few years, because it seems to make assertions with strong philosophical implications for the relatively recent (Western) philosophical conversation around personal identity and consciousness.

I no longer think that this is really about what we immediately observe as our individual intellectual existence, and I don't want to criticize whatever it is these folks are talking about.

But FWIW, and in that vein, if we're really talking about artificial intelligence, i.e. "creative" and "spontaneous" thought, that we all as introspective thinkers can immediately observe, here are references I take seriously (Bernard Williams and John Searle from the 20th century):

https://archive.org/details/problemsofselfph0000will/page/n7...

https://archive.org/details/intentionalityes0000sear

Descartes, Hume, Kant and Wittgenstein are older sources that are relevant.

[edit] Clarified that Williams and Searle are 20th century.

I was thinking the same about AI in 2022 ... And I was so wrong!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33750867

AGI by 'some definition' is a red herring. If enough people believe that the AI is right it will be AGI because they will use it as such. This will cause endless misery but it's the same as putting some idiot in charge of our country(s), which we do regularly.

Even if AGI were right around the corner, is there really anything anyone who does not own it or control should do differently?

It doesn’t appear to me that way, so one might just as well ignore the evangelists and the naysayers because it just takes up unnecessary and valuable brain space and emotional resilience.

Deal with it if and when it gets here.

I guess using history as a guide it might be like self driving. We mostly believed it was right around the corner in 2012. Lots of impressive driving.

2025 were so close but mostly not quite human level. Another 5 years at least