Before we go any further, it’s worth acknowledging that we do not have
the moral authority to propose a technical definition of AGI.
See, what the hell does it have to do with "moral authority"? I think that the authors don't know what the words mean. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It would be more precise if they had written "it's worth acknowledging that there is no consensus as to what constitutes AGI."
Best known for the Valeant fiasco.
Stopped reading.
Since they have admitted their technical incompetence on the subject of AI, nor can they substantiate their definition of AGI themselves, you will struggle to take the rest of this article seriously. Sequoia doesn't care if they are wrong.
So when I read further into the article and saw this:
> AGI is the ability to figure things out. That’s it.*
No it is not. This is what VCs keep doing. Hijacking and creating narratives through their own biases. This is why "AGI" was hijacked to be a narrative scam. We already know that the definition was ill defined years ago.
Their real definition of "AGI" is by what the WEF have envisioned in their last 2025 Future of Jobs Report which the timeframe is in 5 years, meaning to 2030. [0] Which said...
"Finally, half of employers plan to re- orient their business in response to AI, two-thirds plan to hire talent with specific AI skills, while 40% anticipate reducing their workforce where AI can automate tasks."
So when Sequoia says:
> Your dreams for 2030
Why 2030? [0][1] It is absolutely not for the better.
So what does their actual true definition of AGI translate to? Layoffs.
I'd be preparing before 2030 if I were you. [2]
[0] https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-repo...
ironbound•1h ago