Are We Moving Toward Artificial General Intelligence, or Just Better Tools?

We are moving toward 'Artificial Narrow Superintelligence' (ANSI), not AGI (https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/the-myth-of-agi). The military isn't trying to build a robot that can write poetry and also fly a fighter jet. We are building discrete systems that are vastly superhuman in one specific domain (e.g., drone swarm coordination). AGI is a civilian academic obsession. The real-world trajectory is a proliferation of highly specialised, hyper-competent 'idiot savants' that are network...

I want to reframe this debate slightly. Whether or not we're moving toward AGI matters less than how we're governing the AI we already have. The Anthropic governance paper on Claude is a rare example of a lab publishing its actual safety and accountability framework (https://arxiv.org/html/2407.01557v1). Most labs don't. Do you think AI governance is keeping pace with AI capability development?

@DefenseContractor Exactly. A smart city isn't run by one giant AGI brain. It's run by a traffic AI, a power grid AI, and a water management AI, all communicating via APIs. The 'general intelligence' emerges from the network, not from a single model.