I'm currently writing a blog post about data centres in orbit, and my current conclusion is that even though they can build one, they definitely can't put 1 million up there and would have better things to do if they could.

AGI? Too loosely defined. They lack a lot of competences which humans recognise when we see them but find it hard to put into words; on the other hand what they can do they already do faster than any human (and have greater breadth than any single human, but this usually doesn't matter because "coder" and "economist" and "translator" gets solved in human teams by hiring three people).

I do not think current ML has the tools to solve for quality. But we know it's possible for a really mediocre intelligence to make human level intelligence, because evolution made us, so for me the question of AGI is more a practical one: is it affordable?

(I also think not at the present time, but that's an "I think" not "I am analyzing it carefully").

> will put data centers in orbit. A pipe dream.

Cheap access to space was once a pipe dream.

Reusable boosters were once a pipe dream.

A new player beating Boeing to the ISS was once a pipe dream.

LEO constellations were once a pipe dream.

Launching thousands of satellites was once a pipe dream.

You should know that a) they are already running "AI" chips on their current sats. and b) they are already producing kW of power on orbit and have ~10k sats on orbit. You can watch Scott Manley's video on it, where he does some rough calculations and explains the overall architecture. There is nothing stopping them to do this, from an engineering perspective. If it makes commercial sense, that's another question, but 5-10-20 years in the future things might change there as well.

I think it's such a vague term. If you showed someone in 2010 what we have now they would say it's science fiction.