They were incompetent at declaring their own incompetence.
See, what the hell does it have to do with "moral authority"? I think that the authors don't know what the words mean. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It would be more precise if they had written "it's worth acknowledging that there is no consensus as to what constitutes AGI."
> Before we go any further, it’s worth acknowledging that we do not have the moral authority to propose a technical definition of AGI.
Stopped reading.
Since they have admitted their technical incompetence on the subject of AI, nor can they substantiate their definition of AGI themselves, you will struggle to take the rest of this article seriously. Sequoia doesn't care if they are wrong.
So when I read further into the article and saw this:
> AGI is the ability to figure things out. That’s it.*
No it is not. This is what VCs keep doing. Hijacking and creating narratives through their own biases. This is why "AGI" was hijacked to be a narrative scam. We already know that the definition was ill defined years ago.
Their real definition of "AGI" is by what the WEF have envisioned in their last 2025 Future of Jobs Report which the timeframe is in 5 years, meaning to 2030. [0] Which said...
"Finally, half of employers plan to re- orient their business in response to AI, two-thirds plan to hire talent with specific AI skills, while 40% anticipate reducing their workforce where AI can automate tasks."
So when Sequoia says:
> Your dreams for 2030
Why 2030? [0][1] It is absolutely not for the better.
What does their actual true definition of AGI translate to?
Their inability to define AGI and yet fund it is my opportunity. What an incredible gray area to operate in. You can receive funds until the piggy bank breaks and then pivot/exit to the next big thing.
Someone has a lot of money in all the investments, so continuing the hype cycle is cheaper to maintain the portfolio until the IPOs happen
This is Sequoia.
Best known for the Valeant fiasco.
Yeah. They're real geniuses there at Sequoia. IIRC, Valeant was little more than a confidence scheme at its heart.
I think they're probably best known for making money.
This is so clumsily constructed and so transparently self-serving that my opinion of the whole enterprise, such as it is, is lowered.
> DevOps: Traversal’s agents function as an SRE
Fascinating. How’s that working out? Whose site? How reliable?
What on earth is going on?
This is a joke.
I declare AGI!
They were incompetent at declaring their own incompetence.
See, what the hell does it have to do with "moral authority"? I think that the authors don't know what the words mean. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It would be more precise if they had written "it's worth acknowledging that there is no consensus as to what constitutes AGI."
> Before we go any further, it’s worth acknowledging that we do not have the moral authority to propose a technical definition of AGI.
Stopped reading.
Since they have admitted their technical incompetence on the subject of AI, nor can they substantiate their definition of AGI themselves, you will struggle to take the rest of this article seriously. Sequoia doesn't care if they are wrong.
So when I read further into the article and saw this:
> AGI is the ability to figure things out. That’s it.*
No it is not. This is what VCs keep doing. Hijacking and creating narratives through their own biases. This is why "AGI" was hijacked to be a narrative scam. We already know that the definition was ill defined years ago.
Their real definition of "AGI" is by what the WEF have envisioned in their last 2025 Future of Jobs Report which the timeframe is in 5 years, meaning to 2030. [0] Which said...
"Finally, half of employers plan to re- orient their business in response to AI, two-thirds plan to hire talent with specific AI skills, while 40% anticipate reducing their workforce where AI can automate tasks."
So when Sequoia says:
> Your dreams for 2030
Why 2030? [0][1] It is absolutely not for the better.
What does their actual true definition of AGI translate to?
Layoffs.
I'd be preparing before 2030 if I were you. [2]
[0] https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-repo...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46307549
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42563239
> Stopped reading.
Their inability to define AGI and yet fund it is my opportunity. What an incredible gray area to operate in. You can receive funds until the piggy bank breaks and then pivot/exit to the next big thing.
This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius*
*As investors, we do not know what this phrase means. Nevertheless it will be the guiding principle for our next round of funds
Get ready to 10x your SPM (Slop per minute)