accept as a premise that games are less fulfilling if you beat them using a cheat code. stronger claim: they aren’t worth playing at all if you use a cheat code.

now, if life is a game and if AGI is a cheat code, then life’s not worth playing with AGI. if this is wrong, which premise is wrong and why?

Design and software at Apple. Also into AI, philosophy of mind, ethics.

Artificial heating, houses, indoor plumbing, cars, clothes, writing etc etc are all cheat codes to life but they don’t make life not worth playing.

Others have made this point. AGI feels meaningfully different because it represents a “letting go” point for humans and their need/obligation to make decisions.

Good point! I feel like having human-level AGI agents would be similar to how if I was rich today I could have a personal assistant, advisors etc to make my life easier.

If we’re talking about AI vastly more powerful than humans then I agree there is a question of what are the role of humans in such a world.