[canvascritic]

back when we were scaling a saas offering in the late 2000s, we were told by some sales 'engineer' at a certain company well known in those days with lots of hype marketing (that died explosively a year later, big shock), that ML would solve all our engagement problems. It was hyped up, just like AGI is now. the reality? it has made a difference, no doubt, mainly in the form of incremental improvements at best. this feels eerily similar.

I've sat in countless pitches and meetings with bright-eyed founders touting the imminent rise of AGI. There's a palpable excitement around the topic, but from a purely business perspective, there's an equally strong air of naiveté.

I often wonder if proponents of AGI have truly considered its commercial implications. let's indulge the idea for a moment and say that it becomes a reality. how do you price it? how do you convince industries to adopt and trust something that mirrors human cognition, with all its opacity, when we still grapple with the biases and imperfections of simpler AI models?

add to this the astronomical R&D costs. the sheer capex required is a massive barrier. even with vc backing, the path to profitability seems tenuous at best. and in our current startup landscape and inflation reality, such ventures are money holes.

to me, AGI feels like childish pursuit of the shadows of sci-fi dreams. there's merit in pushing the boundaries of technology, but mistaking theoretical marvels for immediate commercial viability is a classic pitfall. for now, I'll reserve my enthusiasm until someone can convincingly bridge the chasm between agi's promise and its pragmatic business value.