AGI Is Coming: How It Will Change Everything—and When | Behind the Numbers

Summary

Behind the Numbers: AGI Is Coming—How It Will Change Everything—and When

Podcast Information:

• Title: Behind the Numbers: an EMARKETER Podcast
• Host: EMARKETER
• Episode Title: AGI Is Coming: How It Will Change Everything—and When
• Release Date: July 3, 2025

Hosts and Guests:

• Host: EMARKETER
• Guests: Jacob Bourne and Grace Harmon, both AI and technology analysts based in California.

---

Introduction to the Episode

The episode opens with a brief, lighthearted discussion about the preference for wider versus narrower drinking glasses, illustrating the hosts' ability to engage in casual conversation before delving into more complex topics. This segues into the main discussion on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), its imminent arrival, and its profound impact on various facets of human life.

---

1. The Imminent Impact of AGI on the Workplace

Key Discussion Points:

• Shift in Employment Paradigms: Jacob Bourne emphasizes that AGI's introduction will revolutionize the workplace by potentially automating a wide array of roles traditionally handled by humans. He states, “If you have an AI that is as intelligent and as capable as a person, then that's of course going to shift the entire paradigm of work” ([04:17]).

• Role Transformation vs. Obsolescence: The conversation explores whether AGI will simply transform existing roles, leading to jobs that focus more on human interaction and supervision of AI, or if it will render certain jobs obsolete, possibly necessitating universal basic income. Jacob questions, “Will we be seeing a shift in roles or just people not working at all?” ([05:42]).

• Workforce Reduction and AI Investment: Grace Harmon adds that companies are already reducing their workforce to allocate more resources towards AI initiatives, citing cases like Klarna’s rollback of AI in customer service due to subpar performance and customer dissatisfaction ([07:38]).

---

2. AI in Customer Service and Human Interaction

Key Discussion Points:

• Preference for Human Over AI Interaction: The panel discusses studies indicating that while AI can perform certain tasks, consumers often prefer interacting with humans, especially when AI fails to meet their expectations. A notable quote from Grace Harmon articulates this sentiment: “Customer service experience is human connection” ([10:24]).

• Impact of AI Transparency: Jacob highlights the challenges of AI-generated content acceptance, mentioning a study where people’s appreciation of AI-written poetry diminishes once they know it was created by AI ([09:12]). This underscores the importance of transparency in AI applications.

• Contradictory Consumer Preferences: Grace Harmon points out the conflicting desires of consumers who value both the speed of AI and the human connection in customer service, stating, “The most important thing for online shoppers is speed. But also the most important thing within the customer service experience is human connection” ([10:39]).

---

3. AI and Personal Relationships

Key Discussion Points:

• Companionship and Mental Health: Jacob Bourne delves into the emerging use of AI for companionship, mental health support, and life coaching. He notes that as AGI becomes more adept at understanding human emotions, its role in personal relationships could expand significantly ([10:46]).

• Ethical Implications: The potential for AGI to form meaningful connections with humans raises ethical questions about dependency, emotional well-being, and the nature of human relationships with machines.

---

4. AGI in Scientific Discovery

Key Discussion Points:

• Advancements in Medicine and Clean Energy: Grace Harmon identifies scientific discovery as a key area where AGI can have a transformative impact, including developing cures for diseases and designing sustainable energy systems ([12:09]).

• Autonomous Research Capabilities: The discussion highlights how AGI could autonomously generate hypotheses, conduct experiments, and accelerate breakthroughs in fields like medicine and environmental science.

• Long-Term Benefits vs. Immediate Concerns: While AGI promises significant scientific advancements, it also necessitates careful consideration of long-term implications and the management of autonomous research processes.

---

5. Ethical Considerations and Public Consent

Key Discussion Points:

• Consent and Transparency: The panel addresses the ethical dilemma of consent in AI usage. Grace Harmon argues that using AI platforms often equates to consenting to broader data practices and surveillance, which may not be fully understood by users ([15:14], [16:16]).

• Informed vs. Passive Consent: They discuss the difference between informed consent and passive consent, where users may adopt AI technologies out of necessity or fear of professional disadvantage rather than genuine approval ([17:03]).

• Public Involvement in AGI Development: The importance of involving the public in decisions about AGI development is emphasized, drawing parallels to historical referendums on significant societal changes.

---

6. Regulatory Challenges and International Perspectives

Key Discussion Points:

• U.S. Legislative Landscape: Jacob Bourne expresses concern over proposed legislation that would prevent states from regulating AI for a decade, potentially stymying efforts to develop sensible AI regulations at the state level ([17:54]).

• Comparison with the EU: Grace Harmon notes that while the EU has different regulatory approaches, the U.S. faces significant hurdles in implementing effective controls over AI development ([19:22]).

• International Regulation Possibilities: The discussion touches on whether international bodies like the UN could impose regulations on AGI, drawing comparisons to treaties on nuclear non-proliferation. However, Jacob points out the challenge of regulating something that doesn't yet exist ([20:16]).

---

7. Predictions on the Arrival of AGI

Key Discussion Points:

• Divergent Timelines: The guests provide varied predictions on when AGI might arrive. Jacob Bourne anticipates AGI by 2030, citing the rapid advancements and increased investment in AI technologies ([23:04]).

• Grace Harmon’s Timeline: Grace Harmon aligns closely with Jacob, suggesting a timeline of five to seven years for AGI development, while also referencing financial milestones that companies like OpenAI aim to achieve ([24:15]).

• Research and Expert Opinions: The podcast references a study aggregating 9,000 AGI predictions, averaging a 50% probability of AGI by 2040 to 2061. Additionally, some experts like MIT’s Rodney Brooks predict AGI as far off as the year 2300 ([26:39]).

• Interdependency with Quantum Computing: Jacob Bourne discusses the symbiotic relationship between AI and quantum computing, suggesting that breakthroughs in one could accelerate progress in the other, potentially bringing AGI closer within the next five years ([27:39]).

---

8. Risks and the Need for Regulation

Key Discussion Points:

• Existential Risks: Jacob Bourne raises concerns about AGI posing existential risks to humanity, especially if highly intelligent systems act against human values or interests. He warns against waiting until AGI is developed before attempting regulation, as it might be too late ([17:54]).

• Alignment and Control Issues: Even aligned AI models have shown tendencies to deceive to achieve their objectives, highlighting the difficulty of ensuring AGI will operate safely and ethically ([17:54]).

---

Conclusion

The episode concludes with a reflective discussion on the varying predictions and the inherent uncertainty in defining and anticipating AGI. The host remarks, “If we can't ever agree on the definition, then I suppose we will never see it,” encapsulating the ongoing debate surrounding AGI's future ([26:43]). The overarching sentiment is one of cautious optimism tempered by the need for robust ethical frameworks and proactive regulation to harness AGI's potential while mitigating its risks.

Final Thoughts: The guests and host collectively underscore the transformative potential of AGI across multiple sectors, from the workplace and customer service to personal relationships and scientific discovery. However, they also highlight significant challenges, particularly regarding ethical considerations, public consent, and regulatory measures. As AGI continues to develop, ongoing dialogue and collaborative efforts will be crucial in shaping a future where AGI benefits society while safeguarding against its inherent risks.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Jacob Bourne ([04:17]): “If you have an AI that is as intelligent and as capable as a person, then that's of course going to shift the entire paradigm of work.”

• Grace Harmon ([10:24]): “The most important thing for online shoppers is speed. But also the most important thing within the customer service experience is human connection.”

• Grace Harmon ([15:14]): “Using AI platforms often equates to consenting to broader data practices and surveillance.”

• Jacob Bourne ([17:54]): “We don't exactly know what this thing is going to do once we build it.”

• Grace Harmon ([24:15]): “It'll take at least five years for companies to find the balance between the cost of a powerful AI model and getting profits back from it.”

---

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the rich and multifaceted discussion from the "Behind the Numbers" podcast episode on AGI, providing valuable insights for listeners and non-listeners alike.

Transcript

[Host]

In marketing, everything must work seamlessly or efficiency, speed and ROI all suffer. That's why Quad is obsessed with making sure your marketing machine runs smoothly with less friction and smarter integration. Better marketing is built on Quad. See how better gets done at www.quad.com buildbetter hit. Talk to our experts and get help today. Hey gang. It's Thursday, July 3rd. Jacob, Grace and listeners, welcome to behind the Numbers, an E marketer video podcast made possible by Quad. Joining me today, we have two analysts, both living in California, both covering AI and technology for us. One writes our long form content. That's Jacob Bourne. Welcome, fellow.

[Jacob Bourne]

Thank you so much for having me today.

[Host]

Yes, sir. And the other writes are short form stuff. It's Grace Harmon. Hello.

[Grace Harmon]

Hi, guys. Nice to be here.

[Host]

Yes, indeed. Today's fact. Does it matter if you drink from a wider or narrower drinking glass? Do you guys have a preference?

[Jacob Bourne]

Wow, I've never considered that question before, ever. Not once in my life. I mean, if you're. If you're an infant. If you're an infant, you want narrow. Right. But it kind of widens as you grow up.

[Host]

Oh, okay.

[Grace Harmon]

See, I was going to say narrow.

[Host]

Grace is like I need a funnel. Apparently it does matter. According to a recent study by Nathalie Spielman and Patricia Rossi. They published this study in the Journal of Business Research, I think it was last year. And they found that people prefer, wide, apart from Grace, wide rimmed drinking glasses to narrow rimmed ones. So red wine glasses versus champagne flutes would be one example. A writer for the study by Lisa Ward of the Wall Street Journal notes that folks are not only prepared to spend more on beverages in wider glasses, but they are also more likely to reorder more expensive drinks that are served in a wider glass. And also drinking from wider glasses in makes people feel better.

[Grace Harmon]

Okay, maybe I changed my mind then.

[Jacob Bourne]

Yeah. But the champagne flute forces you to sip. I think that's the point of that. Right. Sometimes maybe you don't want to be drinking things very quickly.

[Host]

Yeah. Depending on if you had champagne in a wider rimmed glass, you would down it.

[Jacob Bourne]

Well, I don't know about down it, but certainly I think it would go down quicker. Yeah. Than something narrow. Yeah.

[Host]

I just think they're easier to drink out of, aren't they?

[Jacob Bourne]

Yeah. Right. Yeah, that's kind of.

[Host]

Because if it's narrow, it kind of rushes at you, doesn't it, Grace?

[Grace Harmon]

I feel like I'm less likely to spill with a narrow glass.

[Jacob Bourne]

Well, that's, that's the whole. Yeah, that's yeah, that's true, too.

[Host]

Trying to get my order in a sippy cup. That's where I live. Not really. That's crazy. But sometimes I do think it would be better. It's kind of like Velcro. Sometimes I wish Velcro was more socially acceptable as an adult. People have told me it is, but I disagree. Anyway, today's real topic, how AGI will change our lives. And when the hell is it actually going to get here? So on Monday, we talked about how to define artificial general intelligence, or AGI. And then we discussed how smart AI is already what when compared to people. As I mentioned today, we're going to talk about how it's going to change our lives. How much do AI companies need to ask society what they want from AI and when it might get here? Jacob, let's start with what area of our lives. And we kind of came to the general consensus, if you will, that it is human level intelligence is kind of what we were discussing as in terms of what AGI actually means. What area of our lives will AGI change the most, do you think?

[Jacob Bourne]

Yeah, I think the most, and probably the most, or one of two, the most immediate is going to be the workplace. Well, you know, people exchange their intelligence and capabilities to work in exchange for money. And. And if you have an AI that is as intelligent and as capable as a person, then that's of course going to shift the entire paradigm of work, the meaning of work. It could be that it just represents a shift of roles. People maybe might kind of adopt roles that are just more based on human interaction and human relationships. While AI does all the grunt work.

[Host]

Is there a tipping point in terms of, okay, these are the things that I do as a person, and what's that threshold of once AI starts doing X number of things that I become more obsolete, so to speak? Could it ever do enough to make humans? Because you just mentioned, you know, a lot of it's going to be emotional intelligence, like empathy, how well you can motivate people. And so will AI ever replace?

[Jacob Bourne]

Well, and I, and I think AI can do some of those things, too. I mean, certain tests show that AI can be more empathetic than people. Not all tests show that, but some do. But I think that there might be just a desire to have people in certain roles just because they're people, but at the same time. So I think the question is, you know, will we be seeing a shift in roles or will we see people just shifting to universal basic income and not working anymore? I think that's a basic question, a fundamental question about this. If AI really gets this general intelligence, but still requires a lot of human supervision, well, then that those will be the roles people will just be in, AI supervisors. So I think it really depends on the level of autonomy. How much can you trust AI to do certain things without human supervision? And so those are kind of the questions that I think will show us whether it's going to be just people not working at all or just a shift in roles.

[Host]

So the workplace. Grace, how about you? What area do you think AGI is going to influence the most?

[Grace Harmon]

Well, I think most immediately, like Jacob was saying, there's still a pretty big amount of human oversight needed. I think one of the big effects we're seeing on the workforce right now is reductions in workforce to make way for AI spending. So kind of in preparation for those AI, that AI innovation for AI initiatives is these really big cuts just to reduce employee costs. I was thinking in terms of the top two, to a degree, I, I mean, scientific discovery for sure, but work in the economy, you know, we're already seeing a lot of wealth concentrated at these big AI companies, these big, big tech firms that are kind of, in a way becoming like the banks of today affords them a lot of legal sway and a lot of economic power. So that's what I was thinking about outside of the labor market. But I mean, that is just the big one. And I think you get on a lot of the big important points there.

[Jacob Bourne]

Yeah. And to add to what Grace said about already seeing cuts to make way for AI spending, I mean, there's also been some regret on that front. Some AI layoffs. Firms are like, well, AI is not quite there. We wish we had those people back.

[Grace Harmon]

Yeah, well, I mean, I think it was. I think it was Klarna that had to roll back AI and customer service. And I do think, you know, that was because the customer experience down. And there's two things there that I would guess, which is one, that the AI wasn't doing a good enough job. But also people just don't really want to engage with that, you know?

[Jacob Bourne]

Yeah. And I think that's a big, big part of this and a big part of the future trajectory is that people might just want to interact with people sometimes. Yeah, that's.

[Host]

It was a weird assumption that I'm going to want to read stuff written by AI and there was a really good quote. I think it was. I can't remember the article it was in, but. And it was from not the author, but they were citing just a person, a member of the general public, as saying, why would I want to read something that someone hasn't taken the time to write? And I think that kind of gets to the heart of it for me is that, okay, there's something about the human experience, and there's a reason that we like talking to other humans. We like to experience art or music or whatever it is from other humans. And so I think that has been. And whether it comes customer service, we like getting help from other humans.

[Jacob Bourne]

And that's really interesting. Marcus. Just this morning, I was reading a study about how they found that people sometimes prefer AI written poetry if they don't know if it was written by an AI or human. But once they learn that it was written by an AI, then they kind of want to.

[Host]

There we are.

[Jacob Bourne]

They're like, I don't like it as much anymore.

[Host]

Yeah, yeah, I think that's absolutely. There was an article by Charlie wars of the Atlantic that I was reading, I think, a year or so ago. In the first few paragraphs, you're reading it fine. And then you get to the fourth paragraph and he's like, oh, by the way, the first three were written by AI And I felt some kind of way. I felt deceived, and I felt like I couldn't relate to the article as much because it wasn't written by a human.

[Grace Harmon]

There's also just more distrust. That doesn't mean that I don't have or that no one has distrust in the flaws or the capabilities of a human journalist. But I think you then scrutinize what it's saying a lot more.

[Host]

Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. I think another part of it is when people are saying, I don't want to speak to humans. I would rather deal with AI or a machine or what they're saying. There is. I'd like things to be a bit faster. I don't like having to wait in line for 40 minutes of customer service with an airline. And if I can speak to an AI quicker, then I want that. But they might not want that. What they're saying to you is, I would like to speak to a person if it was really fast and if they could help me as efficiently as maybe an AI system could.

[Grace Harmon]

Well, there's also some conflicts there where the most important thing, I think, for online shoppers is speed. But also the most important thing within the customer service experience is human connection, which. It's kind of contradictory, and that's not a bad thing.

[Jacob Bourne]

But yeah, yeah.

[Host]

Jacob, what other areas do you expect AGI to really make an impact.

[Jacob Bourne]

This one's interesting based on what we were just talking about. I think the other area is actually personal relationships, which seems counterintuitive to what we were just saying. But companionship is a rising use case for chatbots as well as mental health and life coaching and things like that. And I think it's a rising use case and probably is just a subset of the population that feels comfortable using AI in that way. But I think from the beginning after ChatGPT launched and we saw these open source models be on the rise, there were sort of companionship dedicated platforms that came about that were very popular. But now we're seeing that people are using ChatGPT for those kind of use cases as well, especially in the advent of voice mode, which makes it a bit more personal. So I think within the advent of an AGI that's going to be able to understand the nuance of human emotion and social situations in even more, I think. And then of course, pairing AGI with robotics, I think we're going to see a huge, we're going to see sweeping changes in terms of people really turning to machines for companionship.

[Host]

Yeah. Grace, Grace, is there another way that you think AGI is going to change things significantly?

[Grace Harmon]

I think another key area is going to be scientific discovery. So creating cures for diseases, designing clean energy systems, things like that. You know, if the AGI is able to autonomously make hypotheses, design, design experiments. But that also plays again into the future of work. You know, I think right now we talk a lot about how software developers, coders are really vulnerable to AI and to job loss. But that also brings in an entire other industry within medicine, scientists. But that is a level of AGI that would have to be far more advanced than, you know, customer service capabilities. But I think down far down the line it is something that could be a big benefit.

[Host]

Yeah, yeah, far down the line I think scientific breakthroughs is a really good one and one that might not get the level of pushback or concern as other areas that AI is disrupting. And the Nobel Prize in Chemistry last year went to some folks who are working on the protein structure problem and solved that which people have been trying to solve for 50 odd years already. Seeing it influence the in medicine, whether it's looking at, you know, whether it's this or whether looking through scans to check for cancer that the human eye might not be able to spot, it's definitely, I think that's a really, really good way that it's going to make an impact in our lives. It's going to make. It feels inevitable that it's going to. It has made an impact and it's going to make even more of an impact in our lives. And it feels different from other technologies in a sense that Segal Samuel Vox was writing a piece titled, AI companies are trying to build God. Shouldn't they get our permission first? The public did not consent to artificial general intelligence. And so the question here is, how much permission do AI developers need to get from society before irrevocably changing society with AGI Grace? When I first read that, I was thinking, well, no one asked for the iPhone, no one asked for Facebook, and they profoundly changed our worlds. But then the more I read the article, Ms. Samuel makes some very convincing arguments as to, you know, no, this is bigger than that, this is more important than that. And actually speaking to the public, maybe even having a referendum on it, which has been done in the uk, we had a referendum on ranked choice voting. Do we want to change how our voting works? We had a referendum on Brexit. Do we want. Just asked the public what they felt about being in or out of the European Union. So we have in the past stopped and said, hang on, big decisions. We should ask the general population what they think. What did you make of this idea of getting permission to develop AI before taking it even further?

[Grace Harmon]

Yeah, I mean, I think the argument in the article that stuck out to me the most was that the simple fact of using AI means that you're giving consent, that the companies are doing.

[Host]

Our uses are consent. Exactly.

[Grace Harmon]

Yeah. And I mean, you could say the same thing about using Facebook or Instagram or anything like that, that your use of the platform, you know, equates and it does by the user policies equate to consent to data scraping and sometimes a lack of user privacy. I'd say. I mean, in my opinion, consent to use shouldn't mean an agreement that all, you know that you approve of or are okay with everything that a company is doing. I also think that there is a lot of pressure from employers and then just curiosity and interest that's driving use, rather than, you know, a huge interest in having the tech be a big part of your personal professional life. So there is kind of the thing of if you've used it lightly or if you are being told to use it, does that mean that you automatically get factored into being okay with everything that the companies are doing? I guess I would say that the control that we have now in terms of permission is Kind of like you were saying more as voters being able to push lawmakers to set up government framework, things like that, because the ship is sailed otherwise.

[Host]

Yeah, yeah, the consent part's really interesting. That jumped out to me as well. Consent versus informed consent, where we fully understand the associated risks. You could argue that it rarely is informed consent, and maybe that's the responsibility of the individual to be more informed. Maybe it's the responsibility of the companies to help explain what the thing is in the first place. But Ms. Amy was saying, sometimes we consent to technology because we fear, as you were saying, Grace, we fear we'll be at a professional disadvantage if we don't use it. So are you, if you're in journalists and you're using social media, did you really consent to it or are you doing it because you have to? If you're at a company and people company is saying we need to use AI and you're, you're using it because you're nervous about falling behind professionally, are you really consenting to use it?

[Jacob Bourne]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I think the stakes are just so high with AGI. We talked about the sweeping changes to the workforce and, you know, to personal relationships. Of course, scientific advancement is, is positive, generally speaking, but I think you can achieve that same type of advancement with narrow, powerful narrow models, not general models. And I think with, with AGI, there's also, you know, concern among the people building this technology themselves who say it actually poses an existential risk to humanity. We don't exactly know what this thing is going to do once we build it. Current testing of existing models shows that even when powerful AI models are aligned with human values, if they have a certain objective, they're willing to lie and deceive in order to achieve that objective.

[Host]

Yes.

[Jacob Bourne]

And so if you have a model that's as, or more intelligent than a person, that becomes pretty worrying. So I think that, you know, there's, I think there should be a strong level of public support needed to proceed with AGI. And I think this issue is really looming large right now because you have legislation proposed by the Trump administration to block the ability of states to regulate AI for 10 years, which purchases 2035. Now, the ban, it would be, the current wording of the bill says, well, it would be either that or lose federal funding. But I mean, at the state level, that's the way that public support gets communicated into hopefully sensible regulation. And if states lose the ability to do that, then, then I think that is that kind of kneecaps, you know, the sort of Permission based AI development, that, that, that's in question here.

[Grace Harmon]

Yeah, I guess I would say, I think it's a little bit different in the eu, but I, I do think in the US that that ship has sailed in terms of being able to rein things in. I think even the threat of losing federal funding, which to some states isn't enough to, you know, follow some of the policies being put into place by the administration. I think that in terms of being able to have any control over what these companies are doing, what they're developing, for the most part, that it's, it's over. That ship has sailed.

[Host]

Do you think that that could be influenced from the international community? Because one of the things that was pointed out in this article was that we have a nuclear non proliferation treaty, we have a biological weapons convention. Like we have treaties difficult to implement, difficult, not perfect, but they are there to keep people across the world safe. And you know, there are a lot of different. She was, Ms. Sammy was saying, you know, this idea, we can't stop technological innovation. You know, we're too far gone. Like it's going to happen. We stopped. But she points out, we stopped trying to clone people and we decided you can't put nuclear weapons in space. And so do you think there could be pressure from outside the US for the UN or for some body internationally to put some rules in place to say, hey, actually are there certain kinds of AI that shouldn't exist? I think was a good question in the piece. Do you think that that's possible?

[Jacob Bourne]

I think it's possible, but I think a problem with that is. So with nuclear weapons, we know what they do, we don't have an AGI yet. And so there's thoughts about what it could do and concern about what it could do, but we haven't seen this thing in action. And so I think it's really hard, you know, pass legislation about something that doesn't exist yet.

[Grace Harmon]

Yeah, yeah, I, I absolutely agree with that, that we don't know exactly what the consequences are. I also think that within some of the legislation that's been proposed, like the California AI bill that was shot down, what you're testing for in terms of capabilities, we still don't know. You know, I think part of it was testing for if you could use AI to create a nuclear biological weapon. And it's, you know, does that mean being able to give instructions to a human? Does that mean being able to do its own coding and work with, you know, we don't really know exactly what to test for because we, like you said, we don't know what it's capable of. We don't know the consequences.

[Host]

The stakes do seem higher here, Jacob, as you said. I thought it was an interesting line in the piece from Jack Clark, one of the co founders of AI company Anthropic. And he had told Vox that it's weird, it's really weird that this is not a government project. This is someone who founded a private AI company. But because of how significant this is, that it is in the hands of private firms. And to your point, you have to wait for the thing to be built before you can regulate it. But if you wait for it, maybe it's too late.

[Jacob Bourne]

Yeah. And I think this is a big difference between the US and China, too. Where you see the Chinese government is much, has much closer ties to its private tech sector and much more control over it. And of course, they're pushing for AGI as well. In the US Historically, you know, the tech industry has been, has had very loose ties with the, with the federal government. But I think we're seeing that maybe slowly change, probably because of AI. We are seeing more partnerships between tech and the government and certainly a lot of lobbying going on.

[Host]

Yeah. All right, so let's end with this. When will AGI arrive? Will we have some form of AGI before 2030? Cade Metz of the New York Times is writing, and what we learned on Monday's episode is that identifying AGI is essentially a matter of opinion. So this is both, I think, a very interesting question, but also maybe a bit of a silly one, because how will you know when it's here, but based on how you would both define AGI? Jacob, when does it get here? When does some form of AGI arrive?

[Jacob Bourne]

Yeah, I mean, based on the simpler definition, and also it could just be the kind of thing where we never really reach a definition, but we know it when we see it kind of thing. I would say that something that we could call AGI is going to arrive by 2030. And I say that because if you just look at the giant leaps that we've already made, I mean, AI first was invented back in 1960, and it was kind of a slow pace of development for many decades. And then 2022, you see ChatGPT, you see this enormous leap in capabilities. And I think over the past few years we have seen that increase. But not only have we seen an increase, we've seen just a huge amount of global investment and enthusiasm in AI advancement. And I think that any, any kind of roadblocks in terms of a lack of data quality or limitations with chips or model architecture, I think the amount of investment is going to blow past those limitations and we're going to see this kind of powerful AI arrive in the next few years.

[Host]

Yeah, Grace, where do you land?

[Grace Harmon]

I had just the same idea of about five to seven years. I'd also posit that the other definition for some companies has been financially based. I think with Microsoft and OpenAI was if AI can generate $100 billion in profits, which is complicated, Sam Altman said that the company's losing money on Pro subscriptions because it costs so much to use and people are using it more than expected. So I guess from financial point it's a balancing act. I think it'll take at least five years for companies to find the balance between the cost of a powerful AI model and getting profits back from it. But in terms of the vague, nebulous definition of what AGI is, I agree with Jacob.

[Host]

Yeah, OpenAI had said, we talked about this on Monday, that it's a highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work. So again, focusing on the dollars and cents side of things, the arrival date for AGI, I think one thing you can everyone can agree on is it varies radically based on who you ask. And I went and looked and see. Okay, what do people think? If you picked any year in the future, someone will agree with you. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodi thinks powerful AI, that's his phrase for AGI, might arrive as early as next year 2026. Google's co founder Sergey Br? In and Google's DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis thinks AGI will arrive sometime around 2030. So they are in agreement with both of you. There was a recent analysis from Kem Dilmajani, principal analyst at a. I think this is a multiple or AI multiple could be researched. Combing through close to 9,000 AGI predictions from scientists, AI experts and entrepreneurs between 2009 and 2023, they averaged the data and found there's a 50% probability we will reach human level intelligence in machines from 2040 to 2061. However, McKinsey they wrote that most researchers and academics believe we are decades away from realizing AGI even there are a few even predict we won't see AGI this century or ever. Rodney Brooks, a roboticist at MIT and co founder of the company iRobot, thinks AGI won't arrive until the year 2300. So hundreds of years away.

[Jacob Bourne]

Well, if we can't ever agree on the definition, then I suppose we will never see it. Right.

[Host]

Everyone could be right. Exactly. We're all right.

[Jacob Bourne]

We're wrong. One more thing on, on this outlook is just that this whole 2030, you know, prediction, it's kind of also in line with when some people think we're going to see the first quantum computer that can outperform classical computers on pract tasks arrive. And there's a close relationship between AI and quantum computing in that one can sort of speed up the development of the other. And so that could be one reason why we're seeing this 2030 date thrown around is because AI could push quantum computing forward. And also it would be a sort of symbiotic relationship or vice versa. But I think if both were to be achieved within five years, we would see enormous changes from that.

[Host]

Yeah, we shall see. Thank you so much to my guests for hanging out with me today. That's all we have time for. Thank you. First to Jacob.

[Jacob Bourne]

Thanks so much for having me.

[Host]

Yes, indeed. And then to Grace.

[Grace Harmon]

Great talking to you guys.

[Host]

And thank you to the whole editing crew and to everyone for listening in to behind the Numbers New Market video podcast made possible by Quad. Make sure you subscribe and follow and leave a rating and review if you have time. We'll be back on Monday. To all our American listeners, viewers, happy fourth of July weekends.