Emergence is Overrated: AGI as an Archipelago of Experts

Everyone from AI executives and researchers to doomsayers, politicians, and activists is talking about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Yet, they often don't seem to agree on its exact definition. One common definition of AGI is an AI that can do everything a human can do, but are humans truly general? In this paper, we address what's wrong with our conception of AGI, and why, even in its most coherent formulation, it is a flawed concept to describe the future of AI. We explore whether the most widely accepted definitions are plausible, useful, and truly general. We argue that AI must embrace specialization, rather than strive for generality, and in its specialization strive for superhuman performance, and introduce Superhuman Adaptable Intelligence (SAI). SAI is defined as intelligence that can learn to exceed humans at anything important that we can do, and that can fill in the skill gaps where humans are incapable. We then lay out how SAI can help hone a discussion around AI that was blurred by an overloaded definition of AGI, and extrapolate the implications of using it as a guide for the future.

The "AI singularity" is often miscast as a monolithic, godlike mind. Evolution suggests a different path: intelligence is fundamentally plural, social, and relational. Recent advances in agentic AI reveal that frontier reasoning models, such as DeepSeek-R1, do not improve simply by "thinking longer". Instead, they simulate internal "societies of thought," spontaneous cognitive debates that argue, verify, and reconcile to solve complex tasks. Moreover, we are entering an era of human-AI centaurs: hybrid actors where collective agency transcends individual control. Scaling this intelligence requires shifting from dyadic alignment (RLHF) toward institutional alignment. By designing digital protocols, modeled on organizations and markets, we can build a social infrastructure of checks and balances. The next intelligence explosion will not be a single silicon brain, but a complex, combinatorial society specializing and sprawling like a city. No mind is an island.

This paper proposes a theoretical framework for understanding intelligence as a process of atomic compression and compositional reuse. We argue that cognitive, biological, computational, and organizational systems achieve scalable intelligence by decomposing complex phenomena into reusable atomic units that can be recombined into higher-order structures. Drawing on evidence from cognitive science, information theory, evolutionary biology, software engineering, medicine, legal reasoning, education, music, and artificial intelligence, the paper develops the concept of atomic units as fundamental compression layers that support efficiency, transfer, interpretability, and evolvability. The central contribution is the Compression Calculus, a formal framework for comparing surface-level representations with atomic representations and for describing how compression gains compound across abstraction layers. We introduce the Compounding Cascade thesis, according to which each additional layer of abstraction multiplicatively increases representational efficiency rather than merely adding incremental savings. The paper further argues that contemporary AI systems often operate at suboptimal levels of representation, relying on token-level processing or document-level retrieval rather than stable, concept-level atomic structures. In this view, large language models are best understood not as complete knowledge architectures, but as dynamic fusion engines capable of navigating, sequencing, and recombining atomic units. The framework provides a foundation for designing self-evolving knowledge systems that can discover, refine, and compose new primitives over time. By reframing intelligence as compression through compositional abstraction, the paper offers a unifying perspective on expertise, knowledge representation, explainable AI, and the future architecture of adaptive intelligent systems.