[simonw]

Author's conclusion here is pretty much where I'm at too:

> In the end, I see AI for what it is: a powerful but limited tool—not a revolution, not a replacement for human thinking, and definitely not something worth worshipping.

How much of a "revolution" it is depends on your field though. I think computer programming is still the field that is most impacted by potential productivity improvements from these tools.

[tim333]

There's a difference between current AI which is not a revolution and future AI which does have the potential for something like the industrial revolution.

[insane_dreamer]

Except that future AI has been predicted for a long time now. Are we really much closer to AGI than we were 10 years ago?

[tim333]

I'm kind of a believer in Kurzweil / Moore's law stuff that you can predict when it'll turn up by extrapolating hardware progress. That has always had the human level date around 2030.

[insane_dreamer]

That assumes you can estimate the hardware requirements needed for the creation of AGI.

[tim333]

Yeah. You can estimate roughly what you need for something functionally equivalent to a brain. It comes out around 100 TFLOPS give or take a couple of zeros so we kind of have that now which gives people five years to sort the algorithms if it's going to be 2030.