What if it takes 100 years to get to AGI or we never achieve it? All bets on AGI will just fail over and over again for decades in that case. It seems a bit like saying financiers can't risk not being involved with Faster-than-light travel technology. Yeah, it would change everything if we got it, but betting that we'll get it soon over and over again is probably not going to get you a lot of money.

We've been projecting both FTL and AGI as future possibilities for almost 100 years now. Do LLMs get us a lot closer to AGI? I think they get us a little closer and Moore's "law" making compute faster probably is a much bigger factor, but I think we're still a very very long ways away.

Who has been projecting FTL as a realistic technology ever? FTL is not possible according to the current laws of Physics, while AGI is at least not forbidden by them.

We don't even know what human consciousness is. We can't even answer if we have free will or not. And you are proposing that AGI..is what exactly ?

> We don't even know what human consciousness is.

I think Douglas Hofstadter satisfactorily answered this question.

> We can't even answer if we have free will or not.

Sure we can, it's just that most people don't like the answer.

> I think Douglas Hofstadter satisfactorily answered this question.

He didn't prove anything. It's a theory, just like many others: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-higher/

> Sure we can, it's just that most people don't like the answer.

Again, not proven

There are also plenty of people who think you can't prove whether the Christian God exists. I don't take those people seriously.

Don't mistake continued debate amongst "experts" as being a signal that something is unsettled.

The IQ of the smartest human, the perfect memory storing and recollection of computers, the fact that it never tires. I don't know if it's AGI but it's already something greater than us.

If it was greater than humans already it wouldn't need humans to help it work.

Is the IQ measured by tests created for and answered by humans in the training data?

ok...there's no 'general' IQ afaik

I think this should be something you can answer for yourself by looking at human media and news over the lasy 100 years. I find it hard to belive you haven't ever noticed anyone seriously saying we may possibly have FTL sometime in the future. Incidentially I think I read on HackerNews that Sam Altman has been talking about building Dyson Spheres in the future. I suppose they're not forbidden by the current laws of phyisics either, but I don't know if I would call them a realistic technology.

> Those financiers can’t risk not being involved in a company with even just a slight potential for AGI.

Do recent actions of Open AI give you the impression of a company that believes it is about to attain AGI imminently?

All it matters that gullible investors do.

Hell, all it matters to investors is not being left holding the bag in the end so they don't even need to believe it