[ameliaquining]

The idea in AI 2027 is that, if even one company can realize the benefits of AI that quickly, that's enough to change everything. Partly because of feedback loops where powerful AI is used to accelerate AI capabilities, and partly because we've already seen OpenAI's customer base go from zero to, like, everybody, in the blink of an eye. (This is not an attempt to weigh in on the ongoing controversy about OpenAI's financial sustainability; rather, the point is that we know that it's possible in this kind of scenario for a single company to attain economy-wide market penetration quickly, so that's not necessarily a big barrier to technological adoption.)

[jononor]

Which companies would, if they alone become radically more effective, actually be able to radically change impact on their industry? The vast majority of companies are in value chains, where practical value creation depends also on the suppliers and customers of the company. Often there are multiple suppliers and customers, and sometimes there are multiple levels of relationships on each side... That places constrains/inefficiencies on how quickly and how much one can achieve.

[jdlshore]

I’ve not read the paper, but it appears to be suffering the same fallacy that AI boosters tend to suffer: the mighty “if.”

Yes, if AI is godlike, then the first company to leverage the machine god will be rewarded.

But it’s not. The “benefits of AI” are a combination of placebo, automation of mediocre work, and few modest points of leverage.