Also, I like like how almost nobody takes issue with a decade time interval. If he means that current LLMs, slowly plateauing in performance, would somehow take a decade to create AI (which he calls AGI)? Where would this fantastical gain in performance come from? Or he thinks it will be a different mechanism as a basis? But then what mechanism, it should be at least real in theory by now if it were to realize in a decade time.

Basically what I mean, is that if LLMs are future real AI basis, it would take less than a decade because they are in diminishing returns today. And if it is something completely new, then what exactly? And if it is something abstract, fuzzy and hypothetical, whence did a decade number come from?

This is basically Sam Altman's "5 to 10 years in the future"(1) all over again. Not less than 5 so as not to be verified in the near future, and no need to show at least something as a prototype or at least scientific theory. And no more than 10 year so as not to scare Softbank and other investors.

(1) https://fortune.com/2025/09/26/sam-altman-openai-ceo-superin...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jodiecook/2024/07/16/openais-5-...

https://www.tomsguide.com/ai/chatgpt/sam-altman-claims-agi-i...

The difference with fusion is that we have a very good understanding of how fusion works, and exactly what we need to figure out how to do, to make it a viable energy source. It's basically just an engineering problem, albeit a very difficult one due to the extreme conditions. AGI is more like developing warp drive. With AGI, we really have no idea how the brain works or any clue of what problems need to be solved. It's basically just like the underpants gnomes.

Phase 1: Buying more GPU to increase the number of parameters in a LLM Phase 2: ??? Phase 3: AGI

AGI may come anywhere between next week, 1000 years in the future, or never. Anyone who claims to have any idea is full of shit, because we don't even know what problems we need to solve to get there. If we develop a good model of how human cognition works at a biological level, there is at least a direction, but that isn't going to be coming out of some AI hype factory with a datacenter full of H100's making videos of anthropomorphic cats working as pastry chefs.

I can't use fusion power yet.

Several hundred million people are using LLMs every day.

There has to be at least two orders of magnitude more investment in "AI" technologies than there are in fusion techs right now.

Fusion is a lot closer than it used to be. In the last decade, research uncovered a relatively large regime that seems like it could be commercializable. I know a couple researchers who've recently exited academia / national labs to start commercial fusion power companies. Maybe they fail, but they're optimistic enough to make the bet.

Dunno - I've followed Moravec and Kurzweil and the predicted dates have never budged, and things have followed the predictions fairly accurately.

It would not always be a decade or two away if it was funded like the current AI cycle.

In the days before AlphaGo computer Go was still a decade away according to most experts.

Y'all wouldn't believe this but 10 years ago AGI was a hundred years away.

Fusion is 30 years away, AGI is much closer