Jean Laval Chue HimDirector| Stella Aurorae Accountants Pty LtdSydney, Nsw, Australia
If we define AGI as a machine which can have the creativity of a 12 years old at least, I personally do not think it is for soon. As creativity requires consciousness and emotions..
The big problem I had in the early 1990s when I worked in AI at the University of Natal, was how to give consciousness and emotions to a machine?
We could not solve it then. Maybe first we have to define consciousness and what emotions are, then maybe we can mimic using intelligent algorithms using videos, sentiment analysis, etc.
But even then the machine will not be a conscious and emotional being as such. So for AGI/AI to replace human experts, I think if ever possible is far away.
I would like to hear from Project managers working on AGI, what is their opinions.
I agree that true AGI with human-like creativity and consciousness is still far off. Current AI excels at pattern recognition, problem-solving, and automating tasks, but emotions, self-awareness, and genuine creativity remain beyond reach. In the near term, AI will continue to augment human expertise rather than replace it, providing support for decision-making, analysis, and productivity. Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Thank you for raising this question, Jean. It touches a concern many practitioners quietly share.
From my perspective, it helps to separate three points that are often blended together in discussions about AGI:
Creativity does not require consciousness Basic creative capability, combining ideas, exploring alternatives, generating novel options, can exist without subjective consciousness. What current systems still lack is not creativity itself, but self-directed intention and responsibility.
Emotion as experience vs. emotion as function Machines do not feel, and likely will not. But in human decision-making, emotions often act as regulators, shaping priority, risk perception, and attention. These functions can be modeled without inner experience, and this is already influencing how AI supports decisions.
AGI is less about replacement and more about role redefinition The real issue may not be when machines replace human experts, but how work and authority are redistributed. In project environments, we already see a pattern: AI supports analysis, prediction, and pattern recognition, while humans remain accountable for judgment, ethics, meaning, and context.
In summary, conscious, human-like AGI is likely distant. Broad, general operational AI is already here and it demands stronger leadership, not less.
This makes Project Managers critical stewards of governance, ethics, and human–AI collaboration, not just delivery.
...
1 reply by Jean Laval Chue Him
Dec 16, 2025 12:13 AM
Jean Laval Chue Him
...
Hi Luis, I beg to disagree with you. I believe that consciousness is necessary in creativity as the person who creates must know where in his environment he/she fits and who he/she is. With consciousness one knows from previous experiences that he/she can make things happen. Without consciousness and not knowing oneself we cannot be resilient and persistent and knowing we can make the dream become a reality when faced with seemingly unsurmountable difficulties in the process of creation. self-directed intention and responsibility comes from knowing one's weaknesses and strengths..
To use heuritics in creation one needs life experiences through tough times and previous experience having solved hard near impossible problems.
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
I agree it’s not soon. What we’re seeing today is general capability without consciousnes, AI can generate options and patterns, but it doesn’t hold intent, accountability, or ethical responsibility. In practice, this means AI will augment human experts, not replace them. The real challenge for us isn’t AGI itself, but learning how to govern, interpret, and responsibly use increasingly capable systems long before true AGI exists. Saving Changes...
Jean Laval Chue HimDirector| Stella Aurorae Accountants Pty LtdSydney, Nsw, Australia
Dec 15, 2025 6:06 AM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
Thank you for raising this question, Jean. It touches a concern many practitioners quietly share.
From my perspective, it helps to separate three points that are often blended together in discussions about AGI:
Creativity does not require consciousness Basic creative capability, combining ideas, exploring alternatives, generating novel options, can exist without subjective consciousness. What current systems still lack is not creativity itself, but self-directed intention and responsibility.
Emotion as experience vs. emotion as function Machines do not feel, and likely will not. But in human decision-making, emotions often act as regulators, shaping priority, risk perception, and attention. These functions can be modeled without inner experience, and this is already influencing how AI supports decisions.
AGI is less about replacement and more about role redefinition The real issue may not be when machines replace human experts, but how work and authority are redistributed. In project environments, we already see a pattern: AI supports analysis, prediction, and pattern recognition, while humans remain accountable for judgment, ethics, meaning, and context.
In summary, conscious, human-like AGI is likely distant. Broad, general operational AI is already here and it demands stronger leadership, not less.
This makes Project Managers critical stewards of governance, ethics, and human–AI collaboration, not just delivery.
Hi Luis, I beg to disagree with you. I believe that consciousness is necessary in creativity as the person who creates must know where in his environment he/she fits and who he/she is. With consciousness one knows from previous experiences that he/she can make things happen. Without consciousness and not knowing oneself we cannot be resilient and persistent and knowing we can make the dream become a reality when faced with seemingly unsurmountable difficulties in the process of creation. self-directed intention and responsibility comes from knowing one's weaknesses and strengths..
To use heuritics in creation one needs life experiences through tough times and previous experience having solved hard near impossible problems.
Jean, thank you for your thoughtful and nuanced response.
I genuinely appreciate the depth of your reflection, this is where the conversation becomes truly meaningful.
I suspect, however, that we may be using the same word to describe different dimensions of creativity.
When you speak about creativity, you are not referring merely to the generation of something new, but to the capacity to persist through uncertainty, resistance, failure, and identity-related doubt during the creative process.
This form of creativity is deeply human.
It is rooted in self-awareness, narrative identity, memory of difficult experiences, resilience built over time, and the meaning we attach to effort.
On this point, I fully agree with you: machines do not possess this.
The distinction I am proposing is that this does not exhaust all forms of creativity. What you describe is existential creativity, which differs from exploratory or combinatorial creativity.
You are also right in saying that “the person who creates must know who they are and where they fit in their environment.”
This is consciousness as a continuous sense of self, something AI does not have. AI does not care, does not suffer, does not hope, and does not believe in itself.
That said, some functions that support creative processes, such as heuristic exploration, analogical transfer, cross-domain recombination, and learning from error signals, can occur without subjective experience.
This is why AI can already support creative work, while remaining fundamentally non-creative in the human sense you describe.
I also agree that human heuristics are forged through real and often difficult life experiences.
AI learns differently: Humans learn through scarcity of experience. AI learns through abundance of representations.
This does not replace life. It represents a different epistemology altogether.
As a result, AI may appear creative or resilient, but it is neither. It does not persist, it is simply re-invoked. It does not believe, it optimizes.
This brings us to what truly matters for our profession.
AI will never own the dream.
It will never bear the cost of failure.
It will never stand before stakeholders and say, “this was my decision.”
But it will increasingly surface options we did not see, challenge our mental routines, stress-test our assumptions, and reduce cognitive load under pressure.
Which makes human consciousness more central, not less.
Perhaps the synthesis is this:
Human creativity is inseparable from consciousness, identity, memory, and resilience.
So-called machine creativity is a metaphor for advanced pattern exploration, powerful, but empty of lived experience.
Human-like, conscious AGI is therefore distant, and possibly unreachable.
What is not distant is the need for leaders and project managers who understand this boundary and govern work responsibly.
Thank you for elevating the level of the dialogue, this is exactly the kind of exchange our profession needs.
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Dec 16, 2025 12:13 AM
Replying to Jean Laval Chue Him
...
Hi Luis, I beg to disagree with you. I believe that consciousness is necessary in creativity as the person who creates must know where in his environment he/she fits and who he/she is. With consciousness one knows from previous experiences that he/she can make things happen. Without consciousness and not knowing oneself we cannot be resilient and persistent and knowing we can make the dream become a reality when faced with seemingly unsurmountable difficulties in the process of creation. self-directed intention and responsibility comes from knowing one's weaknesses and strengths..
To use heuritics in creation one needs life experiences through tough times and previous experience having solved hard near impossible problems.
Jean, thank you for your thoughtful and nuanced response.
I genuinely appreciate the depth of your reflection, this is where the conversation becomes truly meaningful.
I suspect, however, that we may be using the same word to describe different dimensions of creativity.
When you speak about creativity, you are not referring merely to the generation of something new, but to the capacity to persist through uncertainty, resistance, failure, and identity-related doubt during the creative process.
This form of creativity is deeply human.
It is rooted in self-awareness, narrative identity, memory of difficult experiences, resilience built over time, and the meaning we attach to effort.
On this point, I fully agree with you: machines do not possess this.
The distinction I am proposing is that this does not exhaust all forms of creativity. What you describe is existential creativity, which differs from exploratory or combinatorial creativity.
You are also right in saying that “the person who creates must know who they are and where they fit in their environment.”
This is consciousness as a continuous sense of self, something AI does not have. AI does not care, does not suffer, does not hope, and does not believe in itself.
That said, some functions that support creative processes, such as heuristic exploration, analogical transfer, cross-domain recombination, and learning from error signals, can occur without subjective experience.
This is why AI can already support creative work, while remaining fundamentally non-creative in the human sense you describe.
I also agree that human heuristics are forged through real and often difficult life experiences.
AI learns differently: Humans learn through scarcity of experience. AI learns through abundance of representations.
This does not replace life. It represents a different epistemology altogether.
As a result, AI may appear creative or resilient, but it is neither. It does not persist, it is simply re-invoked. It does not believe, it optimizes.
This brings us to what truly matters for our profession.
AI will never own the dream.
It will never bear the cost of failure.
It will never stand before stakeholders and say, “this was my decision.”
But it will increasingly surface options we did not see, challenge our mental routines, stress-test our assumptions, and reduce cognitive load under pressure.
Which makes human consciousness more central, not less.
Perhaps the synthesis is this:
Human creativity is inseparable from consciousness, identity, memory, and resilience.
So-called machine creativity is a metaphor for advanced pattern exploration, powerful, but empty of lived experience.
Human-like, conscious AGI is therefore distant, and possibly unreachable.
What is not distant is the need for leaders and project managers who understand this boundary and govern work responsibly.
Thank you for elevating the level of the dialogue, this is exactly the kind of exchange our profession needs. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
