I think everyone has taken your question and run with it using the assumption you’re talking about the AGI part, and maybe you were. But in the background of that story were functional robots that didn’t (initially) have AGI, but were pretty basic in following directions and rules. They were far beyond what we have now still, but robots don’t have to have true AGI to do some jobs, as we’ve been slowly seeing them work towards. The danger is giving them more than they can actually do and assume a broader capability for interaction is enough to make them work well (LLMs in everything).

So my answer is still far away, but not as far away as AGI, unless there’s some breakthrough of course, which none of us can predict either way. And anyone who claims they’re sure about that is just talking, a breakthrough by definition comes unexpectedly.

I hope we don’t get AGI at this point. We’ve shown how careless we can be with such things through LLMs, and AGI to LLM is like nuclear to bottle rockets.

Also, while I replied this, even more people popped up using Asimov as a guideline. Did no one ever actually read his stories?