Viewing AGI development as a race with a winner-takes-all finish line is a risky assumption. It's more likely an ongoing competition where systems become progressively more advanced and diffused across applications, making the idea of a single "winner" misleading.
Related Insights
Unlike the Western discourse, which is often framed as a race to achieve AGI by a certain date, the Chinese AI community has significantly less discussion of specific AGI timelines or a clear "finish line." The focus is on technological self-sufficiency, practical applications, and commercial success.
The popular conception of AGI as a pre-trained system that knows everything is flawed. A more realistic and powerful goal is an AI with a human-like ability for continual learning. This system wouldn't be deployed as a finished product, but as a 'super-intelligent 15-year-old' that learns and adapts to specific roles.
The justification for accelerating AI development to beat China is logically flawed. It assumes the victor wields a controllable tool. In reality, both nations are racing to build the same uncontrollable AI, making the race itself, not the competitor, the primary existential threat.
Instead of a single "AGI" event, AI progress is better understood in three stages. We're in the "powerful tools" era. The next is "powerful agents" that act autonomously. The final stage, "autonomous organizations" that outcompete human-led ones, is much further off due to capability "spikiness."
The idea that AI development is a winner-take-all race to AGI is a compelling story that simplifies complex realities. This narrative is strategically useful as it creates a pretext for aggressive, 'do whatever it takes' behavior, sidestepping the messier nature of real-world conflict.
The definition of AGI is a moving goalpost. Scott Wu argues that today's AI meets the standards that would have been considered AGI a decade ago. As technology automates tasks, human work simply moves to a higher level of abstraction, making percentage-based definitions of AGI flawed.
The AI industry is not a winner-take-all market. Instead, it's a dynamic "leapfrogging" race where competitors like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic constantly surpass each other with new models. This prevents a single monopoly and encourages specialization, with different models excelling in areas like coding or current events.
The discourse around AGI is caught in a paradox. Either it is already emerging, in which case it's less a cataclysmic event and more an incremental software improvement, or it remains a perpetually receding future goal. This captures the tension between the hype of superhuman intelligence and the reality of software development.
A useful mental model for AGI is child development. Just as a child can be left unsupervised for progressively longer periods, AI agents are seeing their autonomous runtimes increase. AGI arrives when it becomes economically profitable to let an AI work continuously without supervision, much like an independent adult.
The idea that one company will achieve AGI and dominate is challenged by current trends. The proliferation of powerful, specialized open-source models from global players suggests a future where AI technology is diverse and dispersed, not hoarded by a single entity.
