
From Good To Great: 10 Ways To Elevate Your Character Quotient
exploring potential
Who doesn't think they have good character? In workshops I have done worldwide, most people believe they have good character and are often satisfied that character is covered if they have 'good' values individually and organizationally. I recognize that mindset because it is precisely how I felt when my colleagues and I started to respond to a leadership gap identified in our 'Leadership on Trial' study after the 2008 global financial crisis. In focus groups conducted in North America, Europe, and Asia, leaders concluded that the failures of judgment were more about character than competence. However, they debated what character is and whether it could be developed. As we set out to solve their debates, I launched a course in our MBA program designed to develop character. The minimal resources available for developing character were associated with values and ethics. I soon discovered that character development was so much more.
The science-based research and practical toolkit to assess, develop, and embed character in organizations is now plentiful, as my colleagues and I have described in many publications, including our book The Character Compass: Transforming Leadership for the 21st Century. Despite clear evidence of the importance of elevating character alongside competence for well-being, judgment, and sustained excellence, there remains a gap between what is possible and necessary and what we currently do in education and practice. As I wrote in a recent Forbes article, Addressing the Crisis of Leadership Character, there is a pressing need to address the gap.
The Character Quotient questions offer a pulse check to assess the gap between a person/organization's current state and its potential. This is not an assessment of the person's character but rather a strategic assessment of what it takes to embrace character leadership fully.
My collaborators and I have worked diligently over the last 15 years, building on the extensive foundation in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and education to bridge theory and practice on leader character. We bring science-based and practical approaches to elevating character alongside competence in higher education and organizations. To provide a pulse check on the degree to which you are realizing the full potential of leader character, I developed the following questions with Dr. Corey Crossan, who did her PhD in Exercise Science focusing on character development. She is a teaching and research fellow at the University of Oxford – Oxford Character Project. An essential perspective that Corey brought from exercise science was treating leader character as habit development, which is a paradigm shift in leadership development.
Although we use the leader character framework shown in Figure 1 and the associated toolkit we developed with many collaborators, as described in Cracking the Code: Leader Character Development for Competitive Advantage, the same questions could apply using a different science-based character framework like the Values in Action Inventory.
Each of the following questions can be examined using a basic Likert scale from zero to 10, with zero being 'not at all,' 5 being 'somewhat,' and 10 being 'always.' For these questions, consider using the framework shown in Figure 1. The term dimensions in question 1 refers to the 11 circles; the behaviors are the smaller text within the circles. For reference, I have added Table 1 of deficient and excess vices so you can better understand what underpins question 2. A cornerstone of character is that any virtue can manifest in a deficient or excess state, which is often overlooked. We wanted to keep this pulse check to 10 questions, so we have taken the liberty of combining some points, such as referring to self and others in questions 1 and 2. You may find you are strong in one aspect and weaker in another, so consider that when responding.
Figure 1 - Leader Character Framework
Before you start, don't get discouraged if you score very low on any question, particularly if you are new to leader character. Reflecting on my journey, I would have been in the zero to two range on most questions when I started. Fortunately, we have a lot of resources and tools to help people improve these scores. The benefits of doing so are extensive, as research at the Ivey Business School has revealed, including a 14% increase in leader effectiveness when moving from weak to strong character.
Awareness
1. I can observe and identify the character dimensions in myself and others (e.g., using the Leader Character Framework).
2. I can observe and identify the deficient and excess vice states of the behaviors underpinning the dimensions in myself and others (e.g., using the Virtues & Vices Index).
3. I am aware of how my character influences my well-being and performance.
4. I can make a strong case for why character matters to well-being and performance.
Development
5. I have a daily character development program targeting my underdeveloped behaviors.
6. My character development is informed by evidence-based science on character development (e.g., using the Seven Strategies for Character Development, Five Stages of Character Development).
7. I champion character at every opportunity (e.g., personal and professional conversations, social media).
8. My character is not conditional on my context (e.g., personal/professional, time pressure, reward systems, organization culture).
Application in Organizations
9. If asked to select or promote someone based on their character, I could do it effectively.
10. I actively work to embed character in my context (e.g., training and development, human resource practices, organization culture, risk management, strategy).
Once you have assessed yourself, add your score to give yourself a percentage out of 100.
To help you put your score in perspective, mine is 89%, and Corey's is 82%. Given that we do this work every day and have done so for 15 years, it may help put your score in perspective. If you have a high score, you may be able to be more constructively critical in considering development opportunities.
If your score is low, this is actually fantastic news! You have an excellent opportunity to develop and incorporate character into your personal and professional life that will be transformative. When we sought feedback from collaborators who have subject matter expertise and work in leadership character, we received many lower scores, which is understandable. Like exercise and nutrition, many of us know what we need to do, but whether we practice it is the actual test. If you have a low score, take it as an indicator of your potential to help motivate you instead of a critique of your character. Reflecting on my score when I started, I would have been hard-pressed to score above 20.
Dixon Ward, the Vice-President of the Okanagan Hockey Group (OHG), agreed to share his score of 60% and his insights. OHG has operated hockey camps in Canada, the United States, Mexico, Japan, Hong Kong, the United Arab Emirates, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, England, Scotland, and Denmark. The Okanagan Hockey Academy was established in 2002 as the first hockey-specific sport school recognized by Hockey Canada. Currently, OHG operates five Academies around North America and Europe, developing over 500 students/athletes annually. Dixon and his team undertook a year-long program designed to elevate character alongside competence in their operations. He shared that before the program, he thought about character often, but on the surface level, and would have scored between 25-30% on the questions. His scores and insights provide a good benchmark for what is possible with a commitment to character.
Below, I provide my score, followed by Dixon's score in brackets. I provide insights about the scores and how you can work to improve your score. Fortunately, we have made great strides since 2008 to help you move along the learning curve more efficiently and effectively.
Identifying character in oneself and others is a cornerstone of awareness. It helps you see aspects of character that you may have neglected. Although I practice observing and identifying character daily, I didn't score a 10 because even though I practice it, I realize there is ongoing learning and development, providing room for improvement. The more I learn, the more I realize there is to learn. Dixon remarked that he finds it much easier to identify character when applying it more purposefully, saying that 'every dimension becomes infinitely more recognizable.'
If this is an area of deficiency for you, there are many resources to learn about character and begin practicing seeing it in yourself and others. A book I co-authored with Gerard Seijts and Jeffrey Gandz called Developing Leadership Character walks through each character dimension and their corresponding behaviors. Also, you could check out the Question of Character Podcast (QC) Episodes 1 and 2. Bill Furlong invited me to work with him on the podcast series to provide readily available resources on leader character, its development, and its application in organizations. The beauty of observing and identifying character is that it is everywhere. Many people say that you can't unsee it once you see it. It becomes the basis for how you understand people. It is particularly valuable in something we call 'behavioral forecasting,' where once you understand a person's character, you can predict your own judgment and the judgment of others, equipping you to strengthen your character to close the gap on the judgment you wish to exercise. And you can help support others in their character development.
I practice observing and identifying deficient and excess states in myself and others daily. Like question 1, the more I do this, the more I realize there is to learn. Dixon remarked that 'the vices and virtues get muddy for me.' That is not surprising, as sorting through differences takes consistent effort over time and is one of the more difficult areas. Table 1 is a great resource, and many people use it as a roadmap to consider where they stand, when, and why. The middle column is like being on a balance beam; knowing whether your lean is one side or another - deficient or excess - is essential for development. For example, in the case of being appreciative, it would be rare for me to be on the excess side of 'awe-struck.' When exercising being appreciative, I am working to shift my 'unthankful' behavior to becoming more appreciative. In contrast, I am very decisive and rarely experience an indecisive deficient state. To ensure my strength in being decisive does not manifest to others as being 'impulsive,' I need to strengthen other character dimensions to support it, and importantly, that strength needs to be seen by others. If they don't observe my strengths in collaboration, humanity, humility, and temperance, my decisiveness could easily be viewed as 'impulsive.' Table 1 is a good start to becoming more aware of deficiencies and excesses. Corey regularly provides LinkedIn and Instagram posts, guiding people through reflections on each dimension.
While my colleagues and I have extensively examined the relationship between character, well-being, and performance, I continually discover how it manifests for me. I can corroborate Dixon's score of 9. He is strongly committed to character because he understands how it influences performance and well-being. The Virtuosity Chronicles with Dixon Ward relays his insights. When we were getting feedback from subject matter experts on the questions, one person pointed out that they scored themselves lower because they started to discover the reverse relationship that if they didn't perform, their character would suffer, for example, in losing confidence, patience, or calm. The Cracking the Character Code article and the Character Compass book provide a good overview of the connections. Also, check out QC Episodes 4, 7, and 11.
My responses to the first three questions prepared me well for this question. Because I live and breathe character, I can easily articulate its benefits. It is also why Dixon scored so high. He described, 'I am acutely aware of the impact character has on myself.' Although the Cracking the Code article explains the benefits, bringing life examples of how character enables your well-being and performance enables others to understand how and why character matters. QC Episode 13 is a helpful resource.
Using the Virtuosity mobile application, which is science-based, for my daily character development ensures my score is strong. Corey and I designed the mobile application to embed everything we know about character and its development in a system equivalent to 'going to the character gym,' as we describe in QC Episode 16. Before using the mobile application, I would have tried to imagine exercises focusing on character dimensions and keep them at the top of my mind daily. This was extremely hard, and I lacked the systems to support my development. Corey and I are big fans of James Clear and his work on habit development. He says, 'You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall to the level of your systems.' The tricky part is that it is not just any system, but a science-based, robust system that enables character habit development. Dixon scored himself a two on his daily development program, indicating that he is very inconsistent. He scored higher on being informed by an evidence-based science of habit development, crediting his work with Virtuosity. As a former professional hockey player, Dixon embraced the possibility of a character gym because he understood the parallels associated with exercise and nutrition in sports. As such, I observed he was likely more aware of the potential, thus yielding lower scores.
Because habit development is a new frontier in leadership development, there is a long way to go to consider implementing habit development systems in higher education and organizations. Although Corey and I have embedded everything we know in the mobile application and a workbook for those less inclined to technology, developing the subject matter expertise to address questions five and six may be the most formidable challenge for individuals and organizations.
Although I have dedicated the last 15 years to research and practice in leader character development, it was not until the last two years that I took greater accountability to champion leader character in mediums such as Forbes and LinkedIn. Corey and I felt it was critical to include this question because the lack of attention to character needs a voice. It needs champions of character who actively seek to illuminate character in daily practice. Although Dixon scored himself a 5, more character champions like him would go a long way. For example, he responded to my invitation for this article without reservation and shared his story in the Virtuosity chronicles. I witnessed him freely sharing his insights and commitments with his team as they worked together to learn about character. Check out QC Episode 12 with John Ossowski, former President of Canada Border Services Agency to learn about another champion of character. In the episode, he says, 'Not a day goes by when we are not talking about character.'
This was a hard one for me and Dixon. The science behind character development, which is embedded in the mobile application, is that we move through five stages: Discovering character, activating character, strengthening character, connecting character (learning how one dimension relies on others), and sustaining character (across contexts). It is this last stage that is very difficult. How does our character hold up under different contexts, such as time pressure, lack of sleep, rewards and incentives that could undermine it, social pressures, etc.? Fortunately, I have the mobile application that guides me through different contexts to become more aware of how my character is stressed. Without that, you can consider how different your character is personally, professionally, and in other contexts. The simple idea is that your strength of character should not be conditional on the context, but instead, you rely on that strength of character to guide your judgment in different contexts. This is what Aristotle described as practical wisdom. QC Episode 3 is a great resource.
Corey and I decided to include a question on selection since it is an area that we are frequently asked about. We believe it is a strategic advantage for organizations that can select and promote based on character, not just competence. Dixon described that he sees this as a daily part of his process, so he applies it regularly. Although I have conducted several hundred character-based interviews, the more I do, the more I discover there is to learn. I have written two articles about character interviews, with my most recent one in MIT Sloan Management Review, 'Make Character Count in Hiring and Promoting.' QC Episode 6, which describes how the Canada Revenue Agency is embedding leader character into executive selection, is a great resource. A key conclusion from this work is that being able to select and promote on character depends on the foundation arising from strong responses to the prior questions. The more you can observe and identify character in yourself and others and are actively working to develop it, the better you can select and promote based on character.
This was my nemesis question. I love that Dixon scored higher than me on this, and rightly so. As he described, all of their programming takes character into account. Corey and I realized when we put the questions together that although we spend a lot of time in training and development within our organizations and helping others embed character in their HR practices and strategy, we both could do more for our organizations. For example, I could spend more time helping my organization employ character-based selection. We developed a Leader Character Certification Program offered through the Ivey Business School that has graduated over 100 subject matter experts equipped to address all areas we identified in the character quotient questions. When we sought feedback on the questions, the feedback was consistent, and the pulse check reminded them of their strengths and weaknesses, as it did for Corey and me. QC Episodes 5, 10, and 14 address how character can be applied in organizations and specifically in culture and conduct.
In summary, we hope the Character Quotient can be used as a pulse check on what is needed and possible to elevate character alongside competence in higher education and organizations. Corey and I felt compelled to create the pulse check because we have witnessed so many individuals operating under the misconception that they have character covered. However, we know the significant gap must be filled to address the challenges and opportunities we all face personally, professionally, and globally. Although we often hear the lament that people don't have enough time to consider one more thing in their lives, we offer that when it comes to character, we are always becoming something while we are busy doing – our thoughts, words, and actions become our habits and character. Character is a meta-habit guiding all other habits. Instead of letting it just happen to us, we need to bring intentionality to awareness, development, and application. With the many resources in place, it is time to move beyond talking about character to real action, demonstrating a commitment to character leadership.
Table 1 - Virtues and Vices Index
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
13 Reasons Gen X Feels Like The Forgotten Generation
Sandwiched between the loud idealism of the Boomers and the digital dominance of Millennials, Gen X often gets sidelined in the cultural conversation. They were latchkey kids turned quiet revolutionaries, carrying the weight of change without demanding a spotlight. But beneath that detached coolness lies a generation that feels distinctly overlooked—and not without reason. Here are 13 unexpected and quietly powerful reasons Gen X often feels like the invisible middle child of modern society. Gen X helped build the digital world we live in, adapting to the rise of email, dial-up, and early social media while holding down traditional jobs. Yet, today's tech culture largely belongs to younger generations, who are assumed to be the digital natives. Gen Xers are often viewed as 'too old' for new platforms but 'too young' to be nostalgic relics as this article in Forbes highlights. That weird digital no-man's-land leaves them out of both the innovation narrative and the retro appreciation era. Their contributions get erased because they were transitional—not flashy. It's hard to be remembered when you were always expected to quietly adapt. Gen X grew up with sky-high divorce rates, minimal emotional validation, and the 'figure it out yourself' parenting philosophy. That upbringing forged a hyper-independent generation praised for grit and stoicism. But that same resilience often gets mistaken for not needing support. Because they're not openly struggling or demanding change, their pain doesn't register. They become background characters in the social dialogue. Quiet endurance is noble—but it's also easily ignored. From grunge and hip-hop to indie cinema and the alt movement, Gen X was behind some of the most transformative shifts in culture as Psychology Today highlights. But those aesthetics and ideas have been co-opted, rebranded, and credited to newer generations. Think flannel and vinyl coming back without a nod to their original architects. The trend cycle skips the origin story and just slaps on a Gen Z filter. What was once revolutionary for Gen X now gets sold back to them like a lifestyle brand. That erasure stings. Boomers still dominate leadership roles while Millennials are treated as the innovation engine. Gen X? They're the dependable in-between, expected to manage everyone else's chaos. But rarely are they spotlighted, mentored upward, or included in big-picture strategy. They keep the corporate world running without ever being acknowledged for it. It's workplace invisibility in its most polished form. No drama, no thanks. As this CNN article points out, Gen X was supposed to be the first generation to do worse financially than their parents—and that forecast became all too real. They've weathered the dot-com crash, the 2008 recession, and now inflation during peak midlife expenses. Yet, financial narratives often skip over them entirely in favor of Boomer wealth or Millennial struggle. Gen X is left holding student debt and college bills at the same time. They're caring for both kids and aging parents with little structural support. But no one's putting their economic crisis on magazine covers. Unlike Millennials or Gen Z, Gen X wasn't raised with language for emotional health. Vulnerability wasn't modeled—it was avoided. Now in midlife, many are learning to process trauma or set boundaries for the first time. But the mental health conversation tends to spotlight younger generations. Gen X feels emotionally underdeveloped and out of sync in today's therapeutic age. They're healing in private while others heal in public. Gen X parents rejected the lax parenting style of Boomers and chose to raise emotionally intelligent, autonomous kids as points out. They were the first to talk about feelings at the dinner table and embrace co-parenting models. But they rarely get credit for that seismic shift. Millennial parenting is now seen as progressive and evolved, while Gen X quietly pioneered that entire playbook. They're the beta version no one credits. It's legacy without recognition. Media, tech, fashion, even wellness brands rarely cater to Gen X. The messaging always skews either older ('retire with confidence!') or younger ('here's how to go viral!'). Gen X is stuck in a demographic black hole where nothing is *for* them. They're left adapting products and narratives that weren't designed with their reality in mind. When you're never the customer, you're also never the priority. That absence is loud. Gen X rejected corporate conformity and the American Dream quietly but firmly. They turned to minimalism, DIY, and creative careers long before it was cool. But because they didn't post about it, no one noticed. Their rebellion was internal, philosophical. And that's why history forgets them—they didn't ask to be remembered. They just lived differently. Gen X is simultaneously parenting teens and supporting elderly parents. That dual pressure leaves them burnt out, with no clear place to vent or receive help. Boomers are aging out, Millennials are parenting young kids—but Gen X is stuck doing both. They're caregivers without a care system. It's unpaid labor that rarely gets acknowledged. And that sense of isolation runs deep. '90s nostalgia is everywhere, but Gen Xers are notably missing from the cast of characters being celebrated. Shows, memes, and fashion pull from their youth, but the people themselves are erased. It's as if the era mattered—but the generation didn't. Gen X is watching their memories get mined for content while they themselves remain on mute. It's a cultural extraction without a human face. And it adds to the invisibility. Gen X doesn't overshare or self-promote online the way Millennials and Gen Z do. Their core identity is built on irony, detachment, and distrust of authority. So they often sit out the viral discourse entirely. That silence gets misread as apathy or irrelevance. But it's actually a survival mechanism rooted in hard-earned skepticism. Unfortunately, algorithms don't reward restraint. Gen X doesn't crave the spotlight, but they do want to be acknowledged. They built, raised, repaired, and adapted without applause. But even quiet strength deserves recognition. Being overlooked isn't a badge of honor—it's a wound. And it's time we start seeing Gen X not just as a bridge—but as a generation with its own identity worth celebrating.


Forbes
6 days ago
- Forbes
Today's ‘Wordle' #1448 Hints, Clues And Answer For Friday, June 6th
How to solve today's Wordle. Looking for Thursday's Wordle hints, clues and answer? You can find them here: The first full weekend of June is almost here which means it's 2XP Friday for all you Competitive Wordle players out there. Double your points, double your losses. It's a high-risk, high-reward day for Wordlers. Let's solve this one, shall we? The Hint: To instruct or improve. The Clue: This Wordle begins with a vowel. Okay, spoilers below! The answer is coming! FEATURED | Frase ByForbes™ Unscramble The Anagram To Reveal The Phrase Pinpoint By Linkedin Guess The Category Queens By Linkedin Crown Each Region Crossclimb By Linkedin Unlock A Trivia Ladder . . . Today's Wordle Every day I check Wordle Bot to help analyze my guessing game. You can check your Wordles with Wordle Bot right here. While not quite as challenging as yesterday's Wordle, this is still a pretty tricky word. I got off to a mediocre start with CHAIR, leaving me with just one yellow box and 285 words remaining. SLOPE only cut that down to 41, though thankfully DEIGN slashed that to just two. I could only think of one: EDIFY for the win! Today's Wordle Bot I thought surely the Wordle Bot would take four today but it beat me with three. That means I get -1 for losing to the Bot which turns into -2 due to 2XP Friday. The Bot gets 1 point for guessing in three and another for beating me, which ends up being 4 points for 2XP Friday. The narrow game we've been playing this month widens considerably with June tallies now at: Erik: 0 points Wordle Bot: 6 points The verb edify comes from Latin aedificāre 'to build' (itself from aedes 'building' or 'temple' + facere 'to make'). In Late Latin it became edificāre; Old French borrowed it as edifier, and it entered Middle English as edify with the sense 'to instruct' or 'build up (morally or spiritually).' Let me know how you fared with your Wordle today on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook. Also be sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel and follow me here on this blog where I write about games, TV shows and movies when I'm not writing puzzle guides. Sign up for my newsletter for more reviews and commentary on entertainment and culture.


Forbes
7 days ago
- Forbes
Future Forecasting The Yearly Path That Will Advance AI To Reach AGI By 2040
Future forecasting the yearly path of advancing todays to AGI by 2040. In today's column, I am continuing my special series on the likely pathways that will get us from conventional AI to the avidly sought attainment of AGI (artificial general intelligence). AGI would be a type of AI that is fully on par with human intellect in all respects. I've previously outlined seven major paths that seem to be the most probable routes of advancing AI to reach AGI (see the link here). Here, I undertake an analytically speculative deep dive into one of those paths, namely I explore the year-by-year aspects of the considered most-expected route, the linear path. Other upcoming postings will cover each of the other remaining paths. The linear path consists of AI being advanced incrementally, one step at a time until we arrive at AGI. Let's talk about it. This analysis of an innovative AI breakthrough is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here). First, some fundamentals are required to set the stage for this weighty discussion. There is a great deal of research going on to further advance AI. The general goal is to either reach artificial general intelligence (AGI) or maybe even the outstretched possibility of achieving artificial superintelligence (ASI). AGI is AI that is considered on par with human intellect and can seemingly match our intelligence. ASI is AI that has gone beyond human intellect and would be superior in many if not all feasible ways. The idea is that ASI would be able to run circles around humans by outthinking us at every turn. For more details on the nature of conventional AI versus AGI and ASI, see my analysis at the link here. We have not yet attained AGI. In fact, it is unknown as to whether we will reach AGI, or that maybe AGI will be achievable in decades or perhaps centuries from now. The AGI attainment dates that are floating around are wildly varying and wildly unsubstantiated by any credible evidence or ironclad logic. ASI is even more beyond the pale when it comes to where we are currently with conventional AI. Right now, efforts to forecast when AGI is going to be attained consist principally of two paths. First, there are highly vocal AI luminaires making individualized brazen predictions. Their headiness makes outsized media headlines. Those prophecies seem to be coalescing toward the year 2030 as a targeted date for AGI. A somewhat quieter path is the advent of periodic surveys or polls of AI experts. This wisdom of the crowd approach is a form of scientific consensus. As I discuss at the link here, the latest polls seem to suggest that AI experts generally believe that we will reach AGI by the year 2040. Should you be swayed by the AI luminaries or more so by the AI experts and their scientific consensus? Historically, the use of scientific consensus as a method of understanding scientific postures has been relatively popular and construed as the standard way of doing things. If you rely on an individual scientist, they might have their own quirky view of the matter. The beauty of consensus is that a majority or more of those in a given realm are putting their collective weight behind whatever position is being espoused. The old adage is that two heads are better than one. In the case of scientific consensus, it might be dozens, hundreds, or thousands of heads that are better than one. For this discussion on the various pathways to AGI, I am going to proceed with the year 2040 as the consensus anticipated target date. Besides the scientific consensus of AI experts, another newer and more expansive approach to gauging when AGI will be achieved is known as AGI convergence-of-evidence or AGI consilience, which I discuss at the link here. As mentioned, in a previous posting I identified seven major pathways that AI is going to advance to become AGI (see the link here). The most often presumed path is the incremental progression trail. The AI industry tends to refer to this as the linear path. It is essentially slow and steady. Each of the other remaining major routes involves various twists and turns. Here's my list of all seven major pathways getting us from contemporary AI to the treasured AGI: You can apply those seven possible pathways to whatever AGI timeline that you want to come up with. Let's undertake a handy divide-and-conquer approach to identify what must presumably happen on a year-by-year basis to get from current AI to AGI. Here's how that goes. We are living in 2025 and somehow are supposed to arrive at AGI by the year 2040. That's essentially 15 years of elapsed time. In the particular case of the linear path, the key assumption is that AI is advancing in a stepwise fashion each year. There aren't any sudden breakthroughs or miracles that perchance arise. It is steady work and requires earnestly keeping our nose to the grind and getting the job done in those fifteen years ahead. The idea is to map out the next fifteen years and speculate what will happen with AI in each respective year. This can be done in a forward-looking mode and also a backward-looking mode. The forward-looking entails thinking about the progress of AI on a year-by-year basis, starting now and culminating in arriving at AGI in 2040. The backward-looking mode involves starting with 2040 as the deadline for AGI and then working back from that achievement on a year-by-year basis to arrive at the year 2025 (matching AI presently). This combination of forward and backward envisioning is a typical hallmark of futurecasting. Is this kind of a forecast of the future ironclad? Nope. If anyone could precisely lay out the next fifteen years of what will happen in AI, they probably would be as clairvoyant as Warren Buffett when it comes to predicting the stock market. Such a person could easily be awarded a Nobel Prize and ought to be one of the richest people ever. All in all, this strawman that I show here is primarily meant to get the juices flowing on how we can be future forecasting the state of AI. It is a conjecture. It is speculative. But at least it has a reasonable basis and is not entirely arbitrary or totally artificial. I went ahead and used the fifteen years of reaching AGI in 2040 as an illustrative example. It could be that 2050 is the date for AGI instead, and thus this journey will play out over 25 years. The timeline and mapping would then have 25 years to deal with rather than fifteen. If 2030 is going to be the AGI arrival year, the pathway would need to be markedly compressed. I opted to identify AI technological advancements for each of the years and added some brief thoughts on the societal implications too. Here's why. AI ethics and AI law are bound to become increasingly vital and will to some degree foster AI advances and in other ways possibly dampen some AI advances, see my in-depth coverage of such tensions at the link here. Here then is a strawman futures forecast year-by-year roadmap from 2025 to 2040 of a linear path getting us to AGI: Year 2025: AI multi-modal models finally become robust and fully integrated into LLMs. Significant improvements in AI real-time reasoning, sensorimotor integration, and grounded language understanding occur. The use of AI in professional domains such as law, medicine, and the like rachet up. Regulatory frameworks remain sporadic and generally unadopted. Year 2026: Agentic AI starts to blossom and become practical and widespread. AI systems with memory and planning capabilities achieve competence in open-ended tasks in simulation environments. Public interest in governing AI increases. Year 2027: The use of AI large-scale world models spurs substantially improved AI capabilities. AI can now computationally improve from fewer examples via advancements in AI meta-learning. Some of these advances allow AI to be employed in white-collar jobs that have a mild displacement economically, but only to a minor degree. Year 2028: AI agents have gained wide acceptance and are capable of executing multi-step tasks semi-autonomously in digital and physical domains, including robotics. AI becomes a key element as taught in schools and as used in education, co-teaching jointly with human teachers. Year 2029: AI is advanced sufficiently to have a generalized understanding of physical causality and real-world constraints through embodied learning. Concerns about AI as a job displacer reach heightened attention. Year 2030: Self-improving AI systems begin modifying their own code under controlled conditions, improving efficiency without human input. This is an important underpinning. Some claim that AGI is now just a year or two away, but this is premature, and ten more years will first take place. Year 2031: Hybrid AI consisting of integrated cognitive architectures unifying symbolic reasoning, neural networks, and probabilistic models has become the new accepted approach to AI. Infighting among AI developers as to whether hybrid AI was the way to go has now evaporated. AI-based tutors fully surpass human teachers in personalization and subject mastery, putting human teachers at great job risk. Year 2032: AI agents achieve human-level performance across most cognitive benchmarks, including abstraction, theory of mind (ToM), and cross-domain learning. This immensely exceeds prior versions of AI that did well on those metrics but not nearly to this degree. Industries begin to radically restructure and rethink their businesses with an AI-first mindset. Year 2033: AI scalability alignment protocols improve in terms of human-AI values alignment. This opens the door to faster adoption of AI due to a belief that AI safety is getting stronger. Trust in AI grows. But so is societal dependence on AI. Year 2034: AI interaction appears to be indistinguishable from human-to-human interaction, even as tested by those who are versed in tricking AI into revealing itself. The role of non-human intelligence and how AI stretches our understanding of philosophy, religion, and human psychology has become a high priority. Year 2035: AI systems exhibit bona fide signs of self-reflection, not just routinized mimicry or parroting. Advances occur in having AI computationally learn from failure across domains and optimizing for long-term utility functions. Debates over some form of UBI (universal basic income) lead to various trials of the approach to aid human labor displacements due to AI. Year 2036: AI advancement has led to fluid generalization across a wide swath of domains. Heated arguments take place about whether AGI is emerging, some say it is, and others insist that a scaling wall is about to be hit and that this is the best that AI will be. Nations begin to covet their AI and set up barriers to prevent other nations from stealing or copying the early AGI systems. Year 2037: Advances in AI showcase human-like situational adaptability and innovation. New inventions and scientific discoveries are being led by AI. Questions arise about whether this pre-AGI has sufficient moral reasoning and human goal alignment. Year 2038: AI systems now embody persistent identities, seemingly able to reflect on experiences across time. Experts believe we are on the cusp of AI reaching cognitive coherence akin to humans. Worldwide discourse on the legal personhood and rights of AI intensifies. Year 2039: Some of the last barriers to acceptance of AI as nearing AGI are overcome when AI demonstrates creativity, emotional nuance, and abstract reasoning in diverse contexts. This was one of the last straws on the camel's back. Existential risks and utopian visions fully dominate public apprehensions. Year 2040: General agreement occurs that AGI has now been attained, though it is still early days of AGI and some are not yet convinced that AGI is truly achieved. Society enters a transitional phase: post-scarcity economics, redefinition of human purpose, and consideration of co-evolution with AGI. Mull over the strawman timeline and consider where you will be and what you will be doing during each of those fifteen years. One viewpoint is that we are all along for the ride and there isn't much that anyone can individually do. I don't agree with that sentiment. Any of us can make a difference in how AI plays out and what the trajectory and impact of reaching AGI is going to be. As per the famous words of Abraham Lincoln: 'The most reliable way to predict the future is to create it.'