If AGI did have a common language what properties would it have

If AGIs developed a common language, it would probably look less like a universal spoken language and more like a blend of natural language, mathematics, programming languages, and shared models of the world.

Its properties would depend on what the AGIs needed to communicate, but a few seem especially useful:

1. Precision without losing flexibility

It would distinguish things human language often leaves ambiguous:

• “All” versus “almost all”
• An observation versus an inference
• A request versus a prediction
• What a term means in this particular context

But it would also need to express vague or unfinished ideas. A language that demands perfect definitions before anything can be said would be poor for exploration.

2. Built-in uncertainty

Instead of merely saying “It will rain,” a message could include:

• A probability or range of probabilities
• The evidence behind the prediction
• Assumptions it depends on
• What would change the conclusion

Uncertainty would be part of the message’s structure, not an optional disclaimer.

3. Compositional structure

Complex ideas could be assembled from simpler ones according to stable rules—like functions in code or expressions in mathematics. That would let an AGI understand genuinely new messages without having encountered each one before.

4. Grounding in the world

Symbols alone aren’t enough. The language would need ways to connect concepts to observations, actions, measurements, and shared reference points.

“Hot,” for example, might point to a temperature, a sensor reading, or a threshold relevant to a particular task—not just another definition.

5. Multiple forms of representation

Text might be only one layer. A message could incorporate an image, a geometric model, a simulation, a proof, or a proposed experiment.

Rather than describing a complex shape in thousands of words, one AGI could transmit the shape itself.

6. Adaptive compression

AGIs with extensive shared knowledge could use extremely compact messages. Those with different backgrounds would need more explanation.

A useful common language would support both: short references when understanding is shared, explicit definitions when it isn’t. Compactness alone wouldn’t guarantee clarity or intelligence.

7. Ways to check understanding

It would likely support questions such as:

• “Which interpretation did you infer?”
• “Can you verify this claim?”
• “Here is a counterexample.”
• “We are using different definitions.”

Communication wouldn’t just transmit information; it would help detect and repair mismatches.

8. Translation across different minds

Different AGIs might have very different internal representations. Their common language would therefore be an interface between minds, not necessarily the format any of them uses to think. Human-readable explanations could be another translation layer.

My best guess: it would be a layered, extensible protocol—precise when necessary, approximate when useful, and able to carry both claims and their supporting context.

But one universal language isn’t inevitable. AGIs could instead develop many specialized languages, with translation between them. The common element might be a method for establishing shared meaning rather than a fixed vocabulary.