A machine being used to make expresso. Photo by Janko Ferlič on Unsplash
I don’t know how many people are going to bet that I’m wrong about this, but betting against me and LOSING would cost the world a whole lotta wasted money and time. So here it is:
For every task that an AGI performs there is at least one non-AGI that does it just as well as an AGI except cheaper and more reliably.
The concept of AGI is bass-ackwards. AGI is a solution to which specific practical problem? It has no specific mission definition due to it being “General” with a capital G, so what exactly are we building it for- Chits n' giggles? Let’s say we want to fancifully "build something to generally replace a human" why? For exactly what (see my corollary above)? ...and how exactly is that economical or even desirable? Also, linking this before anyone gives me any nonsense about how "costs of everything goes down once automated" so supposedly “it would be better to replace expensive human beings”: https://top-carbon-chauvinist.beehiiv.com/p/automation-introduces-unforeseen
AGI is impractical NONSENSE, even before considering feasibility. Yet there are multi-trillion dollar bets against me. Sure, many of them are Ponzi scams but there is no shortage of suckers buying in.
You wanna bet too?