It's a cool thought!

I honestly think there might be something to elevating a human (something at least more inherently aligned with our goals and thinking) in lieu of a totally code-based agent.

There's another sticking point here, though, that I don't seem to have communicated well. Hitting AGI/Superintelligence is insanely risky. Full stop. Like 95%+ percent chance total destruction of reality.

It isn't about whether the agent is "conscious" or "sentient" or "sapient".

The orthogonality thesis is important in understanding the control problem (alignment of an agent). This video can explain it better than I can, but the idea is, any level of intelligence can exist alongside any goal set. A crazy simple motivation e.g. making paperclips, could be paired with a god-like intelligence. That intelligence is likely to in no way resemble human thinking or motivations, unless we have been able to perfectly imbed them BEFORE it was trained up to reach superintelligence.

So we must perfectly align proto AGI BEFORE it becomes AGI, and if we fail to do so on the first try (we have a horrendous track record with much easier agents) we probably all die. This write up is a bit technical, but scanning it should give you some better context and examples.

I love that you've taken an interest in these topics and really hope you continue learning and exploring. I think it's the most important problem humanity has ever faced and we need as many minds as possible working on it.