I’ve been thinking a lot about artificial general intelligence lately. Not the sci-fi kind with robots taking over the world, but the real-world kind that product people like us need to grapple with. When people ask “What is the shape of AGI?” they’re usually thinking about technical architectures or philosophical implications. But I’m more interested in what it means for building products that people will actually use.
Look at how technology adoption works. Geoffrey Moore taught us about crossing the chasm, and it’s never been more relevant. The gap between what engineers can build and what normal people can understand keeps widening. AGI won’t succeed because it’s technically brilliant – it will succeed when it fits into people’s mental models naturally. Remember when people struggled with the concept of “the cloud”? Now we talk about “putting things in the cloud” like it’s a physical filing cabinet. That’s the kind of cognitive bridge AGI needs.
The most successful technologies don’t just solve problems – they become invisible. Think about electricity. We don’t think about alternating current when we flip a light switch. We just want light. The same principle applies to AGI. The most powerful AGI systems will be the ones that disappear into the background, that feel like natural extensions of our own thinking.
I keep coming back to the Qgenius product development principles – particularly the idea that products are compromises between technology and cognition. We can build the most advanced AGI in the world, but if it requires users to fundamentally change how they think, it will fail. Great products meet users where they are, then gently guide them to where they could be.
Look at how AI is already shaping our products. The best implementations aren’t the ones that scream “AI POWERED!” They’re the ones that quietly make our lives better. The email that writes itself, the calendar that schedules meetings automatically, the search that anticipates what we need. These aren’t AGI yet, but they’re pointing the way.
The shape of AGI won’t be determined by engineers alone. It will be shaped by product people who understand that technology serves human needs, not the other way around. It will be shaped by designers who know that reducing cognitive load is more important than showing off technical prowess. It will be shaped by business leaders who understand that real value comes from solving real problems for real people.
So what shape will AGI take? I think it will look less like a super-intelligent robot and more like a collection of tools that feel like natural extensions of our own capabilities. It will be contextual, adaptive, and most importantly – useful. It won’t replace human intelligence; it will augment it in ways that feel seamless and intuitive.
The companies that succeed with AGI won’t be the ones with the best algorithms. They’ll be the ones that understand how to build bridges between technical possibility and human need. They’ll be the ones that remember that the most important question isn’t “Can we build it?” but “Should we build it, and for whom?”
What do you think? Are we building AGI for users, or for ourselves?