AGI is the New Alchemy — and Augmented Intelligence is the Real Renaissance
- Bryan Wisk
- Sep 18
- 4 min read
Let’s say the quiet part out loud: the modern quest for “Artificial General Intelligence” is the 21st-century version of trying to turn lead into gold. A lot of mystique. A lot of money. A lot of cloaks and incantations about “sparks of AGI.” And beneath it all? Racks of GPUs doing very fast, very large matrix multiplication and softmax. Calling that “consciousness” is like calling a printing press “Shakespeare.” It’s machinery, not mind. (If you want the mechanics laid bare: attention is exactly weighted dot products between Q and K, scaled, softmaxed, and applied to V — beautiful engineering, zero magic.
Meanwhile, the most human breakthroughs in computing have never been about replacing us. They’ve been about augmenting us.
We’ve Been Here Before: The Augmentation Tradition
Long before “AGI” became a fundraising spell, the pioneers of computing sketched a different destiny:
Vannevar Bush imagined the Memex — tools to extend memory, navigate knowledge, and think better together. Not a machine that thinks for us, but one that helps us think.
J.C.R. Licklider wrote Man-Computer Symbiosis, arguing for a tight partnership in which humans set goals and judge results while computers handle the drudgery. That essay is the taproot of interactive computing and the internet — not artificial minds, but amplified ones.
Douglas Engelbart laid out a systematic program to augment human intellect — co-evolving tools, processes, and teams to bootstrap our collective capability. The point wasn’t “AI that replaces us,” it was IA that raises us.
This lineage is where nearly every world-changing computing idea actually came from: hypertext, personal computing, the mouse, interactive graphics, networked collaboration. Augmentation won the 20th century; it’s winning the 21st.
The Alchemy of AGI
Alchemy wasn’t only wrong — it was a category error. It confused chemistry’s methods with metaphysics’ goals. AGI makes the same mistake: it treats general intelligence as an emergent property of scale, as if more parameters, more data, and more FLOPs inevitably transmute statistics into sentience. If we just stir the cauldron of linear algebra long enough, consciousness will bubble up! Right?
Look, scale yields capability. It does not guarantee generality; it certainly doesn’t conjure qualia. We can marvel at the engineering — the compilers, kernels, interconnects — without pretending that stochastic parrotry is a soul.
The Renaissance of Augmented Intelligence
If you want to see a future that actually compounds, don’t look to philosopher-kings made of tensors. Look to interfaces that wire human perception, action, and judgment more tightly into the world.
Augmented reality (AR) and heads-up displays grew from decades of practical augmentation: overlays for pilots in the 1950s, Sutherland’s head-mounted display in the 1960s, and a steady march through trackers, toolkits, and spatial computing platforms — all aimed at situating human know-how inside real contexts.
That history matters because it’s a map of compound usefulness: each generation of augmentation unlocks new skills, new workflows, new teams — not new gods. From Boeing’s coinage of “augmented reality” to modern toolchains like ARKit/ARCore and HoloLens, the thread is the same: put knowledge in the line of sight of action.
Why AGI Fails Us — and Augmented Intelligence Scales Us
Alignment vs. Agreement: AGI chases an ever-retreating horizon of alignment. Augmented intelligence narrows the problem: align tools with tasks, and keep humans in the loop where values live. (Licklider was explicit about this division of labor.)
Interpretability vs. Intelligibility: We don’t need to “interpret” a human. We need intelligible systems that extend human sense-making. Engelbart’s program was literally about co-designing methods and media so teams become smarter together.
Speculation vs. Ship: AR, HUDs, decision support, retrieval-augmented tools — these already deliver ROI in safety, medicine, logistics, design, and field work. That’s not a tease of future deity; it’s present-tense leverage.
“But What If AGI Emerges Anyway?”
If one day something like general intelligence does emerge from the machinery, it won’t be because we incanted the right parameter count. It will be because we kept building useful couplings between people, tools, and environments — and stumbled upon deeper principles of cognition along the way. Historically, that’s how progress actually arrives: not via prophecy, but via interfaces.
The Playbook That Works (Because It Already Has)
Design for symbiosis. Put humans in charge of goals, guardrails, and judgment; let machines compress data, search, simulate, and visualize. Licklider’s blueprint is still the cleanest articulation.
Invest in intelligible media. Follow Bush’s Memex spirit: make knowledge navigable, linkable, and augment the memory we share
Co-evolve tools, practices, orgs. Engelbart’s “bootstrapping” wasn’t a metaphor; it was an operating system for human progress. Upgrade the process with the product.
Bring insight into the field of view. AR is not a parlor trick; it’s how expertise meets reality at the speed of perception. Build overlays that reduce error, accelerate training, and raise safety margins.
Use models as instruments, not idols. Treat today’s models like microscopes and power tools — force multipliers with known failure modes — not as apprentice deities in need of worship.
Alchemy promised gold and delivered fumes. AGI promises godhood and delivers benchmarks. Augmented intelligence delivers something older and newer than both: a humane multiplier on what we can see, decide, and do together. That’s not just the safer bet — it’s the only one that’s ever paid off.
Comments