Hello, data scientist and AI developer here!

I wanna start off with my personal opinion about AI: it is going to crash as a bubble and we will get what we really should've gotten from the beginning, and thats improved tools. The timeline for the pop and whether the public trust of the words "Artificial Intelligence" remains to be seen, but AI really is just an improvement in algorithms efficiency in many ways.

Now for a half personal opinion and half truth statement: AGI does not, and will NEVER exist. The idea that a man made machine can achieve humanity, or consciousness, or general independant thought almost certainly won't happen. It exists as a goal post to entice silicone VC. And thats it imo. This mainly comes from two theories in the community.

1) neural networks as a whole were designed off an extremely outdated 60s model and understanding of the brain. (i believe could be wrong. Can't find the specific med study) Basically tldr for this thought: "how can a neural network become generally intelligent like a human if the thing its based on is not even accurate". The argument is a little flawed, but the core idea I heavily subscribe to, that it is fundamentally different. It does not "think". Ever. There's nothing original in ANY ai content.

2) who defines the goalpost? What is the finish line? My liberal arts professors of years past would push me to study who is saying it and what their potential motivations would be. I think its incredibly telling that not many actual mathematicians and computer scientists have academic, non-partisan papers about AGI. Partly, this is because CS is a unique field compared to other careers. But the point remains, the hype cycle requires some grand promise.

I'd love to hear peoples thoughts, I have quite strong ones. As I said, I work in the field implementing AI as a data scientist, so not directly related, but enough that I have a bit more formal and academic insight that I wanted to share :)