> They are fundamentally different, and therefore will always have a different set of strengths and weaknesses.
and this:
> render virtually all human labor worthless
actually conflict. Your job comes from comparative advantage, meaning that being more different from other people actually is more important than how good you are at it (absolute advantage).
If the AGI could do your job better than you, it doesn't matter, because it has something better to do than that. And just like humans have to be paid so they can afford food and shelter, AGIs have to be paid so they can afford electricity and GPUs to run on.
(Besides, if the AGI really is a replacement for a human, it probably has consumerist desires and wants to be paid the median wage too.)
in light of all this, i would very much like to stay in contact with you. ive connected with one other HN user so far (jjlustig) and i hope to connect more so that together we can effect political change around this important issue. ive formed a twitter account to do this, @stop_AGI. whether or not you choose to connect, please do reach out to your state and national legislators (if in the US) and convey your concern about AI. it will more valuable than you know.
That goalpost makes no sense- AIs are not human. They are fundamentally different, and therefore will always have a different set of strengths and weaknesses. Even long after vastly exceeding human intelligence in almost anywhere it counts, it will still also perform worse than us on some tasks. Importantly, an AI wouldn't have to meet your goalpost to be a major threat to humanity, or to render virtually all human labor worthless.
Think about how anthropomorphic this goalpost is if you apply it to other species. "Humans aren't generally intelligent, because their brains don't process scents as effectively as dogs- and still struggle at spatially locating scents."