Why AGI?
Aren’t people convincing enough?
There may be an answer to this question, but I don’t know what it is.
Why are we bothering to develop AGI?
Car manufacturing is done by big yellow robots waving their arms around on production lines. I get that. Diagnostic analysis of medical data and test results is much more efficiently done by computers. Yes. If I want to lose a chess game, I should challenge a computer. Got that too.
But why are we working to develop Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)? We know already that it won’t do as it’s told, any more than people do. We also know that it would take a fraction of the world’s AGI-research budgets to bring people up to speed on whatever we think we need AGI to do.
I’m not asking how it’s going. I’m asking why we’re bothering. As a tool, AI is great. So we need AGI for — what? To hold the tool? We’ve got people for that. Millions of them.
Driverless cars are very impressive, but — we have drivers. All that time and money to develop something we can already do.
Never mind the metaverse; look around you.
