You're guessing, which is a problem, and gives you license to conclude that: > I don’t think agi will be that far away. To, > Give it the ability to have int

You're guessing, which is a problem, and gives you license to conclude that: > I don’t think agi will be that far away. To, > Give it the ability to have internal thoughts before speaking out loud , you have no idea what that means technically because no one knows how internal thinking could ever be mapped to compute. No one does, so it's ok to not know, but then don't use it as a prior to guess. Some have maybe seen this before, if you haven't I'll say it again: compute ≠ intelligence. That LLMs offer convincing phantasms of reasoning is what gives the outside observer the idea they are intelligent. The only intelligence we understand is human intelligence. That's important to emphasize because any idea of an autonomous intelligence rests on our flavor of human intelligence which is fuelled by desire and ambition. Ergo, any machine intelligence we imagine of course is Skynet. Somebody in some other conversation here pointed out the paperclip optimizer as a counterpoint but no, Bostrom makes tons of assumptions on his way to the optimizer, like that an optimizer would optimize humans out of the equation to protect its ability to produce paperclips. There's so many leaps of logic here which all assume very human ideas of intelligence like the optimizer must protect itself from a threat.