[openquery]

> I agree with your sentiment (about the noise), however I think this over simplifies it a bit. We may get AI that is super-human at frontier research and dramatically accelerates the pace, and still have to wait decades before it disrupts the job market (or maybe never displaces all work).

I don't see why that's the case when you have super-human researchers on tap. There are indeed physical (supply chain-y) issues to deal with but isn't the whole point that: 1. Super-human at AI research + scaling to millions of instances will probably result in super-intelligence in everything which is not AI research. (a subset of which is white-collar work) 2. Use that super-intelligence to solve any supply-chain issues you might be facing.

> And we may just find that the human mind is way more capable than we thought and even with accelerating research it's just a harder problem than anyone expected, even algorithmically.

I hope so but whenever I do, I feel like I'm coping hard and not dealing with the facts.

I'm not saying we're there yet - I'm saying the trend lines are clear.

[BobbyJo]

> Use that super-intelligence to solve any supply-chain issues you might be facing.

I think this is where a lot of people's thinking goes awry. Unlimited intelligence doesn't mean unlimited resources or instantaneous implementation.

[openquery]

> Unlimited intelligence doesn't mean unlimited resources or instantaneous implementation.

Of course you're right. At the end of the day you need to deal with the bedrock which is the laws of physics. I could be wrong but I struggle to believe we are close to the edge of what is possible in getting the most out of our limited resources or time.

Without atomic physics, uranium would just be another shiny rock in the ground. Sand is just what covers beaches. With enough time and intelligence we've made the shiny rock power cities and persuaded the sand to solve long-standing mathematical conjectures.

[FloorEgg]

> I hope so but whenever I do, I feel like I'm coping hard and not dealing with the facts.

Maybe I'm being naive, but as someone who spent 2015-2025 fully bought into the idea AI would replace all human labor within ~20 years, my updated take that it won't has a different flavor than coping.

A bit contributor to my perspective was studying the physics of the brain, and a deeper understanding of the very hard economic constraints in the current LLM supply chain.

Re the brain, we compute information in a fundamental different way that is over 1,000,000 more energy efficient than an LLM. We are also around 1,000,000 times more sample efficient at learning.

There is a lot of details in terms of specifics between complexity in human brain architecture (variety of synapses, diversity of neuron types, etc) that have no material equivalent yet.

And on the other side, understanding how hard it has been to build out euv lithography infra, and to completely retool manufacturing for a new paradigm of computing will require so much coordination, a super AI could have all the answers but we also have to deal with getting a bunch of stubborn people to align.

Some people are just coping yes, but if you really zoom into the details on both sides of the equations the gap between where we are and what it would take to dramatically surpass human intelligence is vast.

At the same time I think people overestimate how hard some kinds of knowledge work is (in absolute terms, since it's new and we haven't evolved into it as much), and how economically impactful human augmentation with weaker narrower AI can still be. (Lots of automation and prosperity but without such extreme disruption)

I think in the very long term all bets are off, but we will have plenty of time to evolve our economic systems before we get there.

[grttw1]

“I don't see why that's the case when you have super-human researchers on tap. ”

Hahahaa this is what AI psychosis looks like