> b) No human has demonstrated the capability of actually understanding/explaining how any of these trained models encode the high-level concepts & undertstandi

> b) No human has demonstrated the capability of actually understanding/explaining how any of these trained models encode the high-level concepts & undertstanding that they demonstrate. And yet we have so many people confidently providing lengthy lower bounds on timelines for AGI development. The only tool I have to work with, that I do understand, is thermodynamics. There are about 8 billion strong examples that general intelligence requires on the order of 10 measly watts, and about 1kg of matter. From a thermodynamic point of view, general intelligence is clearly not special at all. This leads me to the belief that we likely already have the computational capability to achieve AGI today, and we simply don't have the right model architecture. That could change literally overnight. Perhaps human brains are more energy-efficient at doing their thing, and if we tried to replicate this with digital computers it would require more than 10 watts. If that's the case, we have the potential of building computers that are vastly more efficient than that, simply because our computers don't need to spend energy for surviving