The Great AI Telescope Delusion: Why Bigger Isn’t Smarter

Imagine a vast observatory, perched high atop a mountain, aiming ever-larger telescopes into the sky. The astronomers inside are shouting, again and again:

“We will find alien life! All we need is more money, bigger mirrors, and longer exposure times! It’s just a matter of scale!”

Decades pass. The telescopes grow monstrous, consuming energy and budgets like dying stars. Still—no aliens. No whispers from the void. And yet the cry continues:

“Next time! Bigger scope! Just trust us!”

Now, pan the camera down from the observatory dome to Silicon Valley, where another kind of astronomer has emerged—not searching the skies, but scouring the internet. These are the AI builders. Instead of glass lenses, they use GPUs. Instead of stars, they observe patterns in language, images, code. Their chant is eerily familiar:

“We will build Artificial General Intelligence! All we need is more compute, more parameters, more data! It’s just a matter of scale!”

Sound familiar?


The Scaling Myth

Let’s be clear: today’s AI systems—particularly Large Language Models (LLMs)—are astonishing. They can write essays, generate images, compose code, simulate personalities, and even pass professional exams. But here’s the thing:

None of this is evidence of actual intelligence. Not one shred.

Not consciousness. Not sentience. Not even a whiff of true understanding. What we have are statistical parrots: incredibly sophisticated, but ultimately shallow imitators of human expression. These models find patterns. They do not understand. They do not know. They do not think.

And no amount of scaling will magically make that happen. Because we have no idea how to build a mind—and worse, no idea whether these tools can even point us in that direction.


The Faith of the Telescope Priests

So why the blind faith?

Because, just like the telescope astronomers of our opening story, the AI industry’s reputation—and fortune—depends on it.

“Give us more GPUs!”
“Give us more data centers!”
“We’re this close to AGI, we swear—just one more model, one more training run!”

It’s a seductive story. Especially when the people telling it are getting filthy rich, wildly famous, and publicly lionized. But let’s not forget: it’s not their money. It’s venture capital. It’s government grants. It’s your attention.

They’ve built an economic and reputational rocket ship out of the assumption that scale will eventually alchemize intelligence.

But here’s the inconvenient truth:

There is no evidence. Not a fraction of a percent. Not a single confirmed pathway. Not one theoretical or empirical clue that we are anywhere near building a truly intelligent or conscious machine.


Bigger Scopes, Same Black Sky

More data won’t fix this. More tokens won’t. More parameters won’t.

LLMs are engineered to compress and generate human-like outputs—not to understand them. They do not possess beliefs, goals, or awareness. They are mirrors, not minds.

Just like a telescope collects light—it doesn’t interpret what it sees. It doesn’t care if there’s life out there. It just keeps looking. Bigger telescope, clearer stars. But no closer to an alien soul.

Likewise, bigger LLMs mean sharper mimicry, smoother text, more convincing illusions. But illusions are all they are.


So What Now?

We’re not saying AI is useless. Far from it. It’s powerful, valuable, sometimes beautiful. But let’s not confuse capability with consciousness. Let’s not mistake output with intelligence.

Maybe real intelligence—mind, agency, awareness—will never emerge from this paradigm. Maybe we’re staring through the wrong instrument entirely. Maybe what we need isn’t a bigger telescope—but a new way of seeing.

Until then, let’s stop pretending we’re on the brink of discovering alien minds inside silicon. We’re not. And no billionaire-backed observatory of the digital kind is going to change that just by getting bigger.


So next time someone shouts, “We just need a few billion more parameters and we’ll reach AGI!”
Just smile, and remember:

Sometimes, the problem isn’t the size of the telescope.
It’s that you’re looking in the wrong direction.


Discover more from Brin Wilson...

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

By Brin Wilson

Occasional Twitter user.

View Author Archive →

Leave a Reply