One group ensures their works are a convoluted mess to maintain their dominance.Another group ensures the computational stack is a convoluted and resource hungry mess to maintain their dominance.

A match made in heaven. Two peas stuck in local minimum pot vacuuming up money and resources.

One pea says : > there's still a lot of infrastructure work for integrating with data sets, learning and serving cheaply on high scale. The other pea says : > Lots of people are making it hard to productionize the research results. Both peas agree : This is how I make my money and stay on-top.

You get what you get for reasons. If neither of them wants to agree their stuck. That's fine with those ushering in the new wave.

Enjoy the party while it lasts.

- Pursuing low-hanging applied-solutions fruit under the guise of a grand mission statement of (AGI) [which is now all the rage], results in one becoming (stuck). You maybe can fool investors and the lay with such madness, but you can't fool yourself nor the matter at hand.

- Not staffing or structuring like you understand or respect what General Intelligence is results in a narrow and specialized mindset among your employee base that produces narrow and specialized solutions.

It's called a local minimum. It's where you land when you don't focus on the bigger picture.

> How to move forward? There's several techniques for that. I don't see them being used. Which either means they don't understand they're stuck or they know they're stuck and don't care. Why would the latter mindset be willfully chosen?

Current models and methods for training AI require huge data sets and computational power to be effective. Who currently maintains such resources? Whose fueling and molding the perception and direction of current efforts? See the conflict of interest?

Furthermore, given how convoluted the approaches/math are, it lends itself to specialized individuals...PhDs. A match made in heaven that allows the market to be narrowed and segmented to a specialized group of people. The problem with this is : It results in narrow and Weak AI.

> Not knowing you're stuck Enough people have made sound arguments. You either grasp them and change or, given how comfortable you are, stay the course. It could be, even with a PhD and clout, that you're just not that intelligent enough to grasp the sound arguments... But, if this is the case, do you really think you're going to solve general intelligence?

Those that (truly) seek to move forward have been moving forward with (AGI).

> Those attempting to preserve old business models with a fresh top layer coating of the new. > Specialist who refuse to respect anything beyond their group's chosen methods and thus respect the scope of AGI. > Well-funded groups who exclusively hire from a narrow scope and narrow specialized focus > VC groups that only invest in low hanging fruit applied engineering ventures > VC groups that don't give those in (true) pursuit of this funding Will just get let behind with the new wave. It's the same as it's always been. You maybe can fool yourself and others. However, you can't fool the laws of nature and the universe.

Enough people have spoken. Enough hints have been given. Enough people have taken and borrowed concepts of the small fry and called it their own only to find themselves lost in what it meant.

Enough time has elapsed. If you're not acting and steering your resources in accordance with the new, you just get left behind grasping the old.

Same as its always been... (True) disruption.

It's on the horizon. It's coming. So, keep your eyes peeled.