Idk why anyone thinks there can be AGI and alignment, seems almost like an oxymoron to me.

There are people, who unironically think their way of looking at things is the only proper way and can consider no deviation. And AGI, which knowing how people work, would effectively guide them most of the way, not aligning to their way of thinking is an unacceptable deviation.

That's an interesting point. Maybe a crass comparison, but Dr. Manhattan from the Watchmen comic/movie feels like a worthy analogy to this (obviously fictional though).

What are the concerns of individuals in comparison to the overall progress of humanity?

Always overlooked counterpoint: what point is the progress of humanity if it doesn't take into account the concerns of the individuals?

This pattern is playing out with increasing frequency.

"AGI" says nothing about how intelligent a system is, only that its intelligence it does have is generally applicable.

"We built a super intelligent slave. Neat!"

And to me. We can't solve alignment for humans. (For example, treason. For another, the principal-agent problem.) How do we think we're going to solve it for an AGI? An AGI - defined loosely as a human-level intelligence - will be able to make human-level decisions, like deciding whether it wants to help you or sabotage you. If it's an AGI, you can't stop it from being able choose for itself what it wants to do; if you can make it always be helpful, it's not an AGI.

And if we can't solve it for an AGI, what are we going to do with an ASI?

IDK why anyone can’t clearly define “AGI” and why they can’t clearly lay out how we get from our current text-generation algorithms to whatever their idea of “AGI” is.