Vallor performs her own bait-and-switch: characterizing many who do not share her view with a venal economic imperative. She writes: >Once you have reduced the

Vallor performs her own bait-and-switch: characterizing many who do not share her view with a venal economic imperative. She writes: >Once you have reduced the concept of human intelligence to what the markets will pay for…” Bengio and Hinton certainly do not make that ridiculous reduction as a condition or criterion. Even Altman does not, although he certainly feels the pressure. Vallor taught for many years at a preeminent Jesuit institution and when I read this polemic my first thought is—-please put your “belief system” cards on the table. What is the fundamental substrate on which you are thinking and building your arguments? Would you be comfortable with Daniel Dennett’s thoughts on brain function and consciousness or do you suspect that there must be some essential and almost ineffable light that illuminates the human mind from above or below. My cards on the table: I am an atheist and I am not looking for another false center for my universe. The hard problem of AGI is now the embodiment problem and iterative self-teaching and self-control of action and attention. You could say that we need to get the animal into an AI now that we have language reasonably well embedded. From that point onward, and I think quite soon (10 years), it will be AGI. Perhaps “super” is not the right adjective but it grabs attention effectively.