[awongh]

The most obvious thing is bio-tech, protein folding, drug discovery, etc. As in, things that have an actual positive effect on humanity (not just dollars).

I don't really get people who are dismissive about this aspect of AI- my original question wasn't about cost-efficiency of developing these things, but just that the technology itself is creating things that wouldn't have been possible before. It seems hard to refute.

Whether or not it's worth the cost is a different debate entirely- about how tech trees are developed and what the second order effects of technology are. There are so many examples- the computer itself, nuclear power, etc. I think AI is probably on the same order as these.

[dodu_]

Correct me if I'm off base but these things (protein folding and drug discovery) both existed before AI, no?

The implication of your comment seemed to be that this was going to be so much more than replacing people. But I fail to see how any of the items you listed are anything other than that.

These things have always been possible. Just slow and limited by labor. Which is the primary and novel "unlock" of AI.

You can argue it's a good thing, and in many areas I'd probably agree. I'm directly responding to your skepticism and implied absurdity that replacement is the main unlock here. It absolutely is.

[awongh]

> Correct me if I'm off base but these things (protein folding and drug discovery) both existed before AI, no?

Yes, you are off-base.

Solutions to the protein folding problem existed before, but not in the way you are implying.

[dodu_]

Fair enough. I appreciate the correction.

I do still believe the main value proposition is large scale replacement and am unconvinced that most people driving AI adoption have these other more noble pursuits in mind with respect to AI.

But I will absolutely stand corrected here and if our dystopian future includes some genuinely useful medicinal advancements then maybe that will make the medicine (heh) go down easier.