[achierius]

> The correct answer, and you'd see it if folks paid attention to the constant linkedin "AI researcher/ML Engineer job postings are up 10% week over week" banners

This does not really lend great credence to the rest of your argument. Yes, Linkedin is hyping the latest job trend. But study after study shows that the bulk of engineers are not doing ML/AI work, even after a year of Linkedin putting up those banners -- and if there were even 2 ML/AI jobs at the start of such a period, then 10% week-over-week growth would imply that the entire population of the earth was in the field.

Clearly that is not the case. So either those banners are total lies, or your interpretation of exponential growth (if something grows exponentially for a bit, it must keep growing exponentially forever) is practically disjointed from reality. And at that point, it's worth asking: what other assumptions about exponential growth might be wrong in this world-view?

Perhaps by "AI engineer" you (like many publications nowadays) just mean to indicate "someone who works with computers"? In that case I could understand your point.