A trillion-dollar word

There is a word worth several trillion dollars.

It lives inside a sealed contract between OpenAI and Microsoft, where the wrong person declaring it out loud triggers a financial event. It has its own UN report. Philosophers have been arguing about it since Alan Turing put it in writing in 1950.

Last week, Jensen Huang defined it as a 𝗧𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗶 𝗮𝗽𝗽.

Huang, the co-founder of Nvidia (valued at four trillion dollars, which you should say out loud slowly), went on Lex Fridman's podcast and 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲.

His benchmark: an AI that builds a viral app, makes a billion dollars for a few months, and then dies.

His own words: "some social application that feeds your little Tamagotchi or something like that."

Come on.

In the same interview, he admitted 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝟭𝟬𝟬,𝟬𝟬𝟬 𝗔𝗜 𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗻'𝘁 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗡𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗮. Which means the company he founded, grew, and runs does not qualify as AGI by the definition he just used to declare AGI achieved.

And here's what the rest of the field sounds like.

Sam Altman says basically built it, no definition attached, just the confidence.

Satya Nadella says nowhere close, same systems, different day.

Dario Amodei says one to three years.

76% of AI researchers surveyed by AAAI say not achievable with current architecture at all.

That sounds more like a horoscope than a debate. I'm a Leo. I checked. Apparently this is a strong week for bold declarations with limited supporting evidence, which, in retrospect, explains Monday.

And look, here's the part that should specifically bother you. 𝗔𝗚𝗜 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺. The OpenAI-Microsoft deal has financial clauses that trigger based on when and by whom AGI is officially declared. Which means Nadella saying "nowhere close" is not a technical assessment. It's a legal filing. He knows exactly what these systems can do. He is protecting a preferred contractual outcome.

Somewhere right now, a lawyer billing $900 an hour has written a definition of "general intelligence" into a binding agreement. No public record. No accountability. The most consequential conceptual question in the history of technology is being resolved in a sealed document, by the people with the largest financial interest in the answer.

I'll be honest: I'm in the middle of something right now that would've taken me a week five years ago. 𝗜 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝘆. I'm not saying stop.

I'm saying 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 staying permanently just out of reach.

Because as long as AGI is always almost-here, the chips keep selling, the capital keeps flowing, and nobody has to answer what comes after.

Somewhere in a sealed agreement, a lawyer has already written the definition of general intelligence. No public record. No accountability. No appeal.

I'd quite like to read it.