[Lonestar1440]

A big reason for my imminent-AGI Skepticism is the fact that our understanding of the currently existing, Biological intelligence is so, so shallow.

We're here at "Systems level sketch of a fruit fly brain". It's incredible work! But as other comments detail, there is far more to the function of a fly brain than this "map". It's quite a long way from "Deep understanding of a Human Brain, to the point where we can begin engineering a replica".

Maybe we'll get lucky, and find that "Neural Network" techniques really are a pathway to Intelligence in a broad sense. But without some mechanistic understanding of Biological Intelligence, it seems no better than betting on the Numbers in roulette.

[israrkhan]

AGI does not need to be based on biological intelligence. it is analogous to human will to fly, and our models were birds, but eventually we came up with something else (airplanes), that are much better at flying than birds (in some regards), and much there is nothing in nature so big, that can fly (nothing that we know of). IMO AGI could be similar.. despite its dissimilarities with biological brains, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then it probably is duck (and perhaps better than duck in some ways).

[tomrod]

I think we've already done this with a certain flatworm.

[perryizgr8]

I don't think you need to fully understand how the brain works to be able to create AGI. Did the invention of the wheel/cart/car require us to fully understand how we walk? Did we need to fully understand how fish swim before we could make a boat? The only caveat would be that the AGI we build would be entirely unlike human minds. In the sane way a car going 100 kph is different from a running person.

[tim333]

It's surprising in a way how similar some generative AI seems to be to human parts of human minds like the dream like images produced some times and the reasoning in o1 being kind of human like.