Problems the AI industry is not addressing adequately

> "This is purely an observation: You only jump ship in the middle of a conquest if either all ships are arriving at the same time (unlikely) or neither is arriving at all. This means that no AI lab is close to AGI."

The central claim here is illogical.

The way I see it, if you believe that AGI is imminent, and if your personal efforts are not entirely crucial to bringing AGI about (just about all engineers are in this category), and if you believe that AGI will obviate most forms of computer-related work, your best move is to do whatever is most profitable in the near-term.

If you make $500k/year, and Meta is offering you $10M/year, then you ought to take the new job. Hoard money, true believer. Then, when AGI hits, you'll be in a better personal position.

Essentially, the author's core assumption is that working for a lower salary at a company that may develop AGI is preferable to working for a much higher salary at a company that may develop AGI. I don't see how that makes any sense.

Being part of the team that achieved AGI first would be to write your name in history forever. That could mean more to people than money.

Also 10m would be a drop in the bucket compared to being a shareholder of a company that has achieved AGI; you could also imagine the influence and fame that comes with it.

"The grass is greener elsewhere" isn't inconsistent with a belief that AGI will happen somewhere.

It means you don't have much faith that the company you're working at will be the ones to pull it off.

With a salary of $10m/year, handwave roughly half of that goes to taxes, you'd be making just shy of $100k post-tax per week. Call me a sellout, but goddamn. For that much money, there's a lot of places I could be convinced to put my faith into that I wouldn't otherwise.