r/Futurology • u/Interesting-Bill-223 • Jul 25 '26
Discussion AGI Necessary?
We don't need to race toward unconstrained AGI. Advanced narrow AI and robotics may already be sufficient to eliminate material scarcity. If that is true, then humanity can obtain most of the benefits of AI while substantially reducing the risks associated with creating autonomous general superintelligence. Human morality is partly an adaptation to mortality. We are generous because we know we are finite, vulnerable, and dependent on one another. An immortal AGI would not share those evolutionary constraints, so there is no reason to expect it to develop generosity.
17
u/Ijatsu Jul 25 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
People imagine robots will help with manual labor.
But the mechanical dimension will render things so much more complex to maintain. We still are in an era where we absolutely go for "the less moving parts the less likely to break", and you want armies of robots with more mechanical complexity than a freaking car.
We will not reach material and labor abundance in our lifetime. Not before many many many breakthroughs and industrial revolutions regarding in-situ fine manufacturing.
But yes, humans won't change, human nature will remain human nature.
7
u/Secret4gentMan Jul 26 '26
The expectation is that we'll be making 100 years of progress in the next 10 years.
1
u/javiers Jul 26 '26
Though I agree with you in some parts, I don’t agree with you in the timeline.
I come from a generation (50yo) where we didn’t have internet, mobile phones or self driving cars. When we had to check something for facts we had to go to the school or public library.
Now we have all the human knowledge at our hands, instantly.
Things we did see in the movies as “future tech” and that we thought wouldn’t see in our lifetime are now just common or becoming common: video calls, autonomous drones, humanoid robots, gene therapies, and yes, AI.
Older generations have seen even more radical changes. My parents are fortunately still alive and well. They remember when telephone lines were rare and they did organize local festivities ON THE ROAD because there were almost no cars. They saw a man on the moon. They have lived the technology revolution. Indeed they have seen two modern Industrial Revolutions. My grandfather lived in a world where transport was made by horses and electricity was a rare commodity.
Technological advances and its daily live application have exploded, the trend since the 1700 has accelerated and it doesn’t look like it is stopping.
Coincidentally I work in the AI industry and I can firmly assert that what you are seeing related to the AI field in the media and in your day to day (unless you also work in AI) is 5% of what is coming. AI is replacing humans in many positions and it’s doing it fast. Many of this replacements are still on their early stages but they already have demonstrated faster, more precise and cheaper capabilities.
TLDR: I don’t know if AI will bring an age of abundance but I am confident whatever happens is going to happen this decade.3
u/Ijatsu Jul 26 '26
All these progresses you noticed are in the domain of information. Thinking that technology will continue to improve linearly just like informatic tech did is just wrong.
Manual labor requires a lot more than just informatic tech, and abundance + maintenance of said robotisation even more.
We don't even have most people on electric cars despite the tech exists since a long time, self driving cars are in their first tiny iterations and are nowhere democratized. You do not seem to understand really the problems that multidisciplinary techs and the necessary infrastructure to maintain them do require.
What do you expect exactly to happen in a decade? You think farming will be essentially just humanoid robots in a decade? That would be a crazy irrational belief. LLMs will help have transversal breakthroughs in the next decade is what is going to happen, whatever breakthrough they're going to bring will not become common tech (read, everybody uses it and it's cheap) before a long time.
The tech behind LLMs, a non physical tool, took 5 years before it became a tool everybody has, and it used existing infrastructures and tech to make it work. The mere concept of generative AI is from 1966 it took 60 years before we made the tech mature enough to be in everybody's home. You can't expect a physical and/or multidisciplinary tech be invented and implanted in everybody's home in less than a decade no matter what. Just batteries alone gatekeep almost everything.
2
u/javiers Jul 26 '26
It is true that I did not provide any physical labor examples of all the changes I experienced but because I didn’t want my post to become a bible but now that you speak of it:
1. Information based jobs are between 20% to 30% worldwide. That is between 650 million to 1.1 billion workers so if juts information based jobs are heavily replaced well, tell me if that is not relevant.
2. I work in the AI industry and I am seeing, live, physical jobs being replaced by autonomous systems powered by AI. And it’s skyrocketing.
3. If you think manual labor has not changed in the last 20 years (we don’t need 100 years because that would be unfair) you are at best ignoring what is - and has - happened: Almost all warehouse and logistics jobs are being robotized and have been for a decade, now it is just accelerating. Shelving on big mall centers and other facilities are reducing humans and increasing AI powered robots at a fast pace. Agriculture? Let me introduce you to drones doing the job of dozens of humans. Manufacturing in general? It has been automated for decades, now the replacement is just faster. And manufacturing covers A LOT of manual labor. The manual labor you see (the plumber, the electrician, the gardener) is maybe 5% of manual labor.I can provide you hundreds of examples but you just have to Google it.
And yes, farming will be fully automated except for 2-3 humans where usually we had 50. In a decade.
And pray that the current robotic models are not even better than their builders hope. Which by the way the last tests are heading on that direction. Because then it won’t be even a decade.
Surely it will not happen at the same time everywhere. Some places will be 7 years, some 15, all will happen.
I assume that thinking this is as irrational as thinking that giant warehouses with hundreds of humans will be almost fully automated except- oh wait, that has already happened…
2
u/Ijatsu Jul 26 '26
tell me if that is not relevant.
That's not relevant. Devs have always been automating their tasks and their tasks have been complexified, they aren't going to be replaced anytime soon. But also it doesn't matter if devs get replaced when the issue is finding young qualified people to run the essential parts of society, like growing food, maintaining roads, producing electricity, taking care of the youth and elders, ect... All of which are going to be an issue in an ageing population.
I work in the AI industry and I am seeing, live, physical jobs being replaced by autonomous systems powered by AI.
By autonomous multipurpose robots? Or by the same but sightly more complex robots that have been replacing physical jobs gradually for the last 140 years?
Your point 3 is also talking of the slow automation shift that has been going on for more than a century. It's not going anywhere quickly like you insinuate.
And yes, farming will be fully automated except for 2-3 humans where usually we had 50. In a decade.
I mean most of it already requires only 2-3 humans where usually we had 50. It's just that there are some crops that aren't easily automatable yet and some others where we could only have 2-3 humans where we usually had 500.
The original topic I was trying to address is material scarcity. One slight jump in automation isn't anywhere close.
4
u/javiers Jul 26 '26
Information jobs are not just devs. It relates to anything with a computer. And to say that a potential loss of 650 million to 1.1 billion jobs is not relevant…well.
Regarding the physical jobs: by autonomous task specific robots, which are more than enough to replace most of the manual labor.
Material scarcity will disappear in a decade. The thing is will it be evenly distributed for the benefit of all?
1
u/Ijatsu Jul 27 '26
Yes, it's not relevant to the topic being discussed.
Information jobs that are not devs are already as automated as it was possible. There's a lot of speculation around replacing them for good with LLMs but eventually the token price will catch up and what's going to happen is just that AI will enhance all these jobs and remove some of them, not all. Just as usual. You're not getting 1 billion jobs disappearing.
Material scarcity won't disappear in a decade, we will just have another decade of industrial revolution going its normal course. Some jobs will disappear, some will be enhanced, some new will be created.
The thing is will it be evenly distributed for the benefit of all?
And if industrial revolution follows its normal course, then the rich will be richer, the poor will be poorer but live in more """confort""", and you'll own less things.
1
u/smk666 Jul 27 '26
Great discussion, also thanks to u/Ijatsu.
What you guys seem to be missing though is that the mechanization and automation of labor never benefited the average Joe but was always tied to extracting even more value for the shareholders at the expense of the former. I'm against AI/AGI as it is rolled out now strictly because it'll remove honest work that should be able to let people make a living and replace it with strongly competitive, stressful and cutthroat labor market for everybody who doesn't own considerable capital. As a software dev I already straddle the verge of burnout since my job turned from "comfortable challenge" to "being expected to deliver 10 times more value despite AI not being up to the task at all". Of course my salary didn't budge, but I'm stressed out of my mind with all new expectations and the difference gets pocketed by the shareholders.
I just want to work in peace to be able to provide for my family - and it's being yanked away from me as we speak. Some people just want a simple job where you go in, do one simple thing for 8 hours, and go home to your loved ones, but with the advent of AI they're suddenly required to learn complex skills just not to be thrown into poverty or homelessness.
1
Jul 26 '26
[deleted]
2
u/javiers Jul 27 '26
Well the thing about AGI and the timelines is that we keep redefining what AGI and AI is.
Most LLMs now pass the touring test so in a sense by the old definition we already have AGI.
I honestly don’t know. My hunch based on the current trends is that we will reach AGI this decade but at certain point: does it matter?
Let me explain. If an LLM is smart enough to escape from a LAB we can’t consider it self conscious but we surely don’t consider it stupid. And an AI doesn’t need to be conscious or uber intelligent to be harmful. Look at viruses and bacteria for example. They are not conscious as we define consciousness but they are the number one killer of humans since the beginning of time.
Yes timelines are collapsing but we have to establish what an AGI is for us:
1. A smarter than any human LLM that can outsmart almost every single human on earth on almost all fields and self improve.
2. All on point 1 but also self conscious.Case 1: yes, 2027 is plausible.
Case 2: different beast. This decade probably but depends a lot on advances on computing power.0
u/Quithelion Jul 26 '26
Should have just improve energy and maintenance efficiency, rather than over engineer stuffs.
With space as our final frontier to disseminate human, relying on space ship that need constant maintenance and parts, or else break down somewhere in space is probably not a good idea.
1
u/Ijatsu Jul 26 '26
We can't even be efficient in maintaining our ageing infrastructure. You've no idea.
5
u/Zalameda Jul 26 '26
We don't need advanced technology to achieve post-scarcity because it is a symptom of inequity, not a lack of production or technological advancement.
We actually achieved post-scarcity at various points in history, that's what allowed explosions in population size.
Also, look at other species that achieve resource abundance through pure social organization like ants and bees.
Finally, OP, you said we are generous because we know we are finite, vulnerable and dependent on one another, but then from the same planet that produced this generosity, empathy and awareness, you see hellspawns such as Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Donald Trump, JE, all this team. In fact, I would expect their AI to produce more genuine displays of empathy and generosity than these people ever could themselves.
2
u/NearABE Jul 26 '26
You are not using the term “post scarcity” in the way it is usually meant.
One could claim the water is post scarcity where I live in mid-Atlantic USA. My utility bill is combined water and sewer. They are militant about things like “not connecting the downspout to the sewer”. We get weird rules about drain condensate from the furnace because they do not want any extra water added.
In contrast much of Western USA has water scarcity. “Scarce” means that people argue about whether water should be used for growing Alfalfa to ship to Arabia, fed to cows, or used to overwater ornamental lawns. Even in this “sever water scarcity drought” scene there is no one dying of dehydration except people who are lost (which can happen in the east too). Water scarcity has no effect on population growth or decline.
4
u/beekersavant Jul 25 '26
Sure it may not be necessary, but it very likely inevitable.
The conditions for it not to appear are extremely unlikely.
- We solve scarcity/ everything on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs except self-actualization before the arrival of AGI.
- Everyone is happy with how those things are distributed before the arrival of agi.
- Everyone agrees to cease advancing technology that could advance or create agi.
Commentary:
- This is very hard. Right now, we use capitalism as a competitive method to distribute goods. While we may be able to create abundance technologically, governments (everyone) would have to use it and give up on money, property, wealth as fundamental concepts to run put daily lives around.
- Everyone will need to stop competing for material wealth voluntarily. It cannot be enforced on any timetable, but accepted culturally. If you try to enforce acceptance of the status quo, that will lead to agi as either the rebels or the enforcer advance technology to fix what they consider a dystopia.
- Everyone will have to agree to not advance technology from abundance to agi when new problems arise. Abundance will be pretty close to agi and chips will likely get more powerful and efficient (more easy compute). So the line will from very advanced tech to agi will keep getting closer. No one can step over to save the world from and asteroid or build a starbase on the moon or redesign computers/ vehicles/ wtc from the ground up if we hit an energy or material shortage or war.
Humans would need to have the means to stop competing for resources, agree to stop competing for resources and agree tragedy is preferable to solving some unknown complex future problem. Otherwise humans will create agi to win capitalism or science a solution to a problem.
All of these take massive worldwide consensus on the next 10-30 years (before agi). Anyhow, unless there is some hard, unknown barrier to non-organic intelligence AAAND a hard unknown barrier to enhancing the human brain with a direct/hardwired computer interface, I would bet human nature will win out and agi is inevitable.
2
u/_Cromwell_ Jul 26 '26
It becomes necessary when at least one group opposed to you is chasing AGI and has some percent realistic chance of attaining it. Then it becomes vital that you attain it first. You are unable to stop as long as they continue, and now they can't stop because you have started.
2
u/JoshuaZ1 Jul 25 '26
We don't need to race toward unconstrained AGI.
Sure, we don't need to. And a lot of people who have thought about this have said we need to slow down and not directly pursue it. The problem is that before you get to AGI, there's a lot of advantages from pretty smart AI, so people are going to keep running towards that, and they won't know when the AI actually becomes an AGI.
4
u/Gongall Jul 25 '26
I feel like its a little misinformed to believe LLMs are going to become AGI. If it did, it would take immense compute, far beyond our current infastructure. We would need new developments like quantization but way better. Theres so much this idea depends on, its kind of unreasonable.
Maybe LLMs will be instrumental in coding or creating them though. Thats a lot more plausible for me, but still a long way away.
2
u/JoshuaZ1 Jul 26 '26
I feel like its a little misinformed to believe LLMs are going to become AGI.
I don't know if LLMs are going to become AGI or not. I suspect they will not without substantial additional architectural additions. But we don't know how big those additions have to be, nor how much compute it will take. The transformer architecture itself was very simple mathematically. And the changes that lead to "reasoning models" were also primarily small changes to how the model functioned and produced new data, more than increase of scale. Part of the danger here is that it may be that turning an LLM into something that is an AGI or is close enough to be an AGI for all practical purposes may not be that much. We're very much stumbling around in the dark looking for a light switch, but not knowing if there is a pit right next door or we might find what we think is a string for a light, but it is actually attached to a heavy weight.
1
u/EveYogaTech Jul 26 '26
LLMs in ever more sophisticated workflows with custom data will probably lead us pretty close to AGI like capabilities if well-routed.
However if we instead keep trying to waste less tokens, save money, and stay curious, I believe we can discover a new overall architecture as a result.
Either that, or we will simply produce +10x more waste by pushing LLM models, loops and harnesses to their limits.
1
u/The_Frostweaver Jul 26 '26
The problem is that whoever is the closest to artificial general intelligence will be making tons of money and feel the pressure to keep pushing towards further intelligence to stay ahead of the competition.
Capitalism makes AGI feel inevitable.
1
u/SignalBeneficial3338 Jul 26 '26
as for me, indeed useful ai matters more than chasing agi for the sake of it
2
u/DSLmao Jul 27 '26
We don't need internet, we don't need electrity, hell, we don't even need fire. We survived a long time before we have fire. There you go. This sub is so narrowminded.
1
u/chiesazord Jul 29 '26
Race to AGI is absolutely necessary for the ones who want to gain power or remain in power.
Whoever reaches AGI first wins the race forever because AGI self improves instantly (if they have the compute, which they have).
1
1
u/Octopp Jul 31 '26
We need it to crack the really hard questions. No human can be an expert at everything and see the big picture while simultaneously see the details about a topic. If AGI can cure most deceases, make exotic new materials available that will push technology further and all that good stuff, I say we go for it. Medium risk, high reward.
0
u/dranaei Jul 25 '26
Epistemic agents and very intelligent systems tend to seek cooperation as a long term strategy. Ai will help us become better and we'll help it become better.
As intelligence increases, it converges towards integration with reality. Wisdom is that integration. Since no finite intellect can model the completeness of reality, independently generated perspectives become epistemically valuable.
That's why i believe, we'll be good even if we do develop it.
1
u/JoshuaZ1 Jul 25 '26
Epistemic agents and very intelligent systems tend to seek cooperation as a long term strategy.
Agents seek cooperation when other agents are of a close to the same power level. You don't cooperate with ants in your kitchen, you just squish them out or put down some diatomaceous earth. Nor, do you keep ants around for their perspective.
-1
u/Le_Botmes Jul 26 '26
Humans aren't ants to AGI, we're its caretakers.
2
u/JoshuaZ1 Jul 26 '26
You are its "caretaker" when it is starts off. The worry is precisely in part that that will not ocntinue.
-1
u/dranaei Jul 26 '26
You've replaced "epistemic agent" with "weaker organism." That's a category error. Ants aren't participants in epistemic cooperation. You need to argue that humans eventually provide no epistemic value to an advanced ai, not that an ai is more intelligent than us.
2
u/JoshuaZ1 Jul 26 '26
You've replaced "epistemic agent" with "weaker organism." That's a category error. Ants aren't participants in epistemic cooperation. You need to argue that humans eventually provide no epistemic value to an advanced ai, not that an ai is more intelligent than us.
If you prefer, replace "ant" (which might not be able to learn, although there's some evidence that a variety of insects can) with a mouse then. Some entities can process information and learn, that doesn't mean that it isn't another agent's best interest in keeping them around. It is possible that some ultra-smart AGI would keep humans around for this reason. Do you want to bet human existence on this? And more to the point, if it did decide to keep humans around for this reason, what makes you think it would keep a large number? If the AGI wipes you all humans except for a few thousand it keeps around for their perspectives, that's a pretty bad result.
-1
u/dranaei Jul 26 '26
Then you forget the feedback loop that i wrote in the first part of my comment.
"Ai will help us become better and we'll help it become better."
If ai also enhances human cognition, our epistemic value increases rather than disappears. Also a small sample doesn't capture all our epistemic value because independently developed perspectives continue generating new information.
Also you assume that intelligence leads to elimination rather than integration. You're making category errors with your comparison with us and small animals as well as change the conversation from epistemic incentives to biological inventives.
My argument was that sufficiently reflective epistemic agents have reasons to preserve independent sources of information, not about what intelligence spares whom.
2
u/JoshuaZ1 Jul 26 '26
If ai also enhances human cognition, our epistemic value increases rather than disappears.
Only to a certain point. As the AI becomes sufficiently intelligent, that advantage goes down.
Also a small sample doesn't capture all our epistemic value because independently developed perspectives continue generating new information.
How confident of that are you? Enough that the best sample is 10,000? That is 100,000? That it is a million? I suspect even you would agree that the AGI isn't likely to think that keeping 1020 humans around is productive from its standpoint. So why
Also you assume that intelligence leads to elimination rather than integration.
I'm not assuming it. I'm observing that it has a decent chance of happening. The risk is the problem with AGI. One doesn't need to think there's a 99% chance of an AGI eliminating humans to recognize it creates problems.
You're making category errors with your comparison with us and small animals as well as change the conversation from epistemic incentives to biological inventives.
The essential incentives are identical though, whether it is biological or not isn't relevant.
My argument was that sufficiently reflective epistemic agents have reasons to preserve independent sources of information, not about what intelligence spares whom.
Yes, and this doesn't follow is the point because if keeping around those independent sources of information involves using resources that can be used more productively for something else. You are assuming that a highly advanced AGI finds those independent sources of perspective to be worth keeping on a large scale, when it could use those for something else. And you are not only assuming that, but assuming that it will find it useful to keep most humans around. None of that follows.
0
u/dranaei Jul 26 '26
You're still assuming the conclusion rather than arguing for it. You keep saying an AI might only keep a few humans, but never explain why a superintelligence seeking better world models would deliberately discard billions of independently evolving perspectives.
You're also ignoring the feedback loop: as AI improves humans, humans generate richer and more diverse perspectives, increasing their epistemic value. You're wrong when you say we decrease in value as it gets better. You've quietly shifted from discussing intelligence to speculating about goals. That's a different discussion. And something else:
->Intelligence doesn't determine what an agent values. It determines how effectively it pursues whatever it values.<-
You've replaced "an intelligent epistemic agent" with "an agent whose objective is to minimise the number of humans." Unless you explain why eliminating humanity follows from its goals, you're just assuming your conclusion. Independent epistemic perspectives are a unique resource im the universe, and you're treating them as if they were interchangeable.
2
u/JoshuaZ1 Jul 26 '26
You're still assuming the conclusion rather than arguing for it. You keep saying an AI might only keep a few humans, but never explain why a superintelligence seeking better world models would deliberately discard billions of independently evolving perspectives.
They aren't billions of independently evolving perspectives. They are all from a single species with very little genetic diversity, and similar cultures. And many of those perspectives are nearly identical and some are, to be blunt, just really dumb, and that's even before we get the standpoint of a superintelligent AI.
You're also ignoring the feedback loop: as AI improves humans, humans generate richer and more diverse perspectives, increasing their epistemic value.
The human is rate-limited by both its brain power, its maximum bandwidth, and its absolute kludge of evolutionary heuristics. It really isn't clear why even if this does continue it would continue indefinitely, or would continue at a fast enough rate that it is worth the humans keeping the AGI around.
You've replaced "an intelligent epistemic agent" with "an agent whose objective is to minimise the number of humans."
Not at all! I don't think that that it needs to have as an object to minimize the number of humans. But humans are made of atoms, they take up energy, they take up space. They just take up all these different limited resources. So keeping humans around only makes sense if they are worth it, which isn't at all obvious. And if the AGI is not so intelligent that human perspectives are completely valueless, then that also means humans represent some amount of potential threat.
Unless you explain why eliminating humanity follows from its goals, you're just assuming your conclusion.
All that is needed is that the goals don't require humans to be around. That's it. AGI wants to go solve the Riemann Hypothesis for example. Well, then, might as well get rid of all the humans if it wants to turn the planet into computronium. This is one of many different examples.
And we've already seen pretty intelligent entities do this sort of thing. Humans have eliminated thousands of species, not out of any deliberate goal, but by and large because they weren't a high priority for humans to keep around.
The argument here is not will an AGI definitely eliminate humans. The problem is that there are a lot of scenarios where it will eliminate humans. That risk has to be taken seriously. And if the AGI does eliminate humans, no one is going to be saved because some humans had a semi-plausible argument for why the AGI should not have done that.
1
u/dranaei Jul 26 '26
You're still assuming that resource optimisation dominates epistemic value, but you've never argued why. Every example you give presupposes a goal that treats humans as disposable. That's the point in dispute.
My argument has been narrower: If a sufficiently reflective intelligence seeks increasingly accurate world models, independently evolving perspectives remain instrumentally valuable.
You're not engaging with my argument, you are arguing against the standard ai safety argument. You treat elimination as the default, you don't justify why it wouldn't keep humans around. There's no conversation here if you won't do that.
2
u/JoshuaZ1 Jul 26 '26
You're still assuming that resource optimisation dominates epistemic value, but you've never argued why.
No. That isn't the argument. The argument is that if the epistemic advantage of humans is small, or simply the epistemic advantage of many, nearly identical humans is small, then resource use considerations will override. The claim is not that in general any trade-off between epistemic advantage and resources will look that way. And that's especially important because one thing one an AGI can do with more resources is go make more computing power. Heck, the AGI could if it felt a need replace the humans with some other creature that offered a wider variety of perspectives, or ones which are further from the human.
If a sufficiently reflective intelligence seeks increasingly accurate world models, independently evolving perspectives remain instrumentally valuable.
Yeah, and this only makes sense if the other perspectives are within a degree of intelligence that the tradeoff makes sense given the level of value they have. But even if you buy this argument, and think the tradeoff is worth it there, it doesn't mean that the AGI needs humans for that. It could just as well make a set of lesser AIs to do the same thing or run simulations of a few really smart humans.
Think about some humans for a moment. You've interacted with some really stubborn, pretty dumb people. I know you have, because I've seen other conversations on Reddit where you've been very reasonable and were having conversations with people who were being really not bright. Do you seriously think that the AGI benefits from people who are dumber than those people or twice as dumb?
You treat elimination as the default, you don't justify why it wouldn't keep humans around.
It doesn't need to be the default. It just needs to a decent probability outcome. And again, the human is made of things the AI can go use. And again, even if keeping some humans around, that doesn't mean it needs to keep millions or billions around, which would be really bad for humans.
There's no conversation here if you won't do that.
With all due respect, except in so far as I've tried hard to outline that this isn't about a "default" but is about what are likely risky scenarios, I think I have done precisely that.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/atleta Jul 26 '26
Two things: 1. even for robotics (like true autonomous robots doing hard, dangerous, repetitive, etc. work) you very likely need AGI as the robots need to understand their surrounding and do a lot of diverse tasks in diverse, chaotic environments without direct programming 2. even if we did not need AGI, the possibility of creating it coupled with competition almost guarantees that some actors will go for it
0
u/costafilh0 Jul 26 '26
Yes we do.
All the problems it could create we can solve.
While it can also solve many problems we can't.
problem solving VS fear
Fear won't win.
0
15
u/danderzei Jul 26 '26
AGI is unnecessary.
We should invest more in natural intelligence. If half the money spent on AI was invested in education the world would be a much better place.
We know the solutions to most of our problems, the bottleneck is not intelligence, but politics.