While I enjoyed the article, it’s just another in a line of the same article with different flavors and authors that all have the same fundamental error.

The prevailing counterargument against AI consistently hinges on the present state of AI rather than the trajectory of its development: but what matters is not the capabilities of AI as they exist today, but the astonishing velocity at which those capabilities are evolving.

We've been through this song and dance before. AI researchers make legitimately impressive breakthroughs in specific tasks, people extrapolate linear growth, the air comes out of the balloon after a couple years when it turns out we couldn't just throw progressively larger models at the problem to emulate human cognition.

I'm surprised that tech workers who should be the most skeptical about this kind of stuff end up being the most breathlessly hyperbolic. Everyone is so eager to get rich off the trend they discard any skepticism.

> The prevailing counterargument against AI consistently hinges on the present state of AI rather than the trajectory of its development: but what matters is not the capabilities of AI as they exist today, but the astonishing velocity at which those capabilities are evolving.

No, the prevailing counter argument is that the prevailing argument in favor of AI taking over everything assumes that the acceleration will remain approximately constant, when in fact we don't know that it will do so and we have every reason to believe that it won't.

No technology in history has ever maintained an exponential growth curve for very long. Every innovation has followed the same pattern:

* There's a major scientific breakthrough which redefines what is possible.

* That breakthrough leads to a rapid increase in technology along a certain axis.

* We eventually see a plateau where we reach the limits of this new paradigm and begin to adapt to the new normal.

AI hypists always talk as though we should extrapolate the last 2 years' growth curve out to 10 years and come to the conclusion that General Intelligence is inevitable, but to do so would be to assume that this particular technological curve will behave very differently than all previous curves.

Instead, what I and many others argue is that we are already starting to see the plateau. We are now in the phase where we've hit the limits of what these models are capable of and we're moving on to adapting them to a variety of use cases. This will bring more change, but it will be slower and not as seismic as the hype would lead you to believe, because we've already gotten off the exponential train.

But we don't know if AI development is following an exponential or sigmoid curve (actually we do kind of, now, but that's beside the point for this post.)

A wise institution will make decisions based on current capabilities, not a prognostication.

All S-curves look exponential at some point.

It was unclear if the current wave of AI would be an exponential, or for how long, or if it would end up just being another S-curve. The potential upside hooked a lot of people into action on the VC-maths of "it doesn't matter if it's unlikely, because the upside is just too good".

It is now becoming clear however that we aren't getting AGI. What we have now is fundamentally what we're likely to have in 5-10 years time. I do think we'll find better uses, figure our shit out, and have much more effective products in that time, I think we're entering the "LLM-era" in much the same way as the 2010s were the smartphone era that redefined a lot of things, but in still the same way, a phone of ~2010 isn't materially different to a phone of ~2020, they're still just internet connected, location aware, interfaces to content and services.

But you could also say: the prevailing argument for AI consistently hinges on the (imagined, projected based on naive assumptions) trajectory of AI rather than the present state.

> the astonishing velocity at which those capabilities are evolving.

This is what is repeated ad nauseam by AI companies desperate for investment and hype. Those who’ve been in the game since before this millennium tend not to be so impressed — recent gains have mostly been due to increased volume of computation and data with only a few real theoretical breakthroughs.

Laymen (myself included) were indeed astonished by ChatGPT, but it’s quite clear that those in the know saw it coming. Remember that those who say otherwise might have reasons (other than an earnest interest in the truth) for doing so.

I honestly believe this specific case is a Pareto situation where the first 80% came at breakneck speeds, and the final 20% just won't come in a satisfactory way. And the uncanny valley effect demands a percentage that's extremely close to 100% before it has any use. Neural networks are great at approximations, but an approximate person is just a nightmare.

What is your time horizon? We're already at a date where people were saying these jobs would be gone. The people most optimistic about the trajectory of this technology were clearly wrong.

If you tell me AI newscasters will be fully functional in 10 or 15 years, I'll believe it. But that far in the future, I'd also believe news will be totally transformed due to some other technology we aren't thinking about yet.

the prevailing argument in favor of investing in AI is its potential.

the prevailing argument against using AI is its current lack of potential.

Those things are inherently in tension, think of it as hiring a new employee straight out of undergrad. You are hiring them based largely on the employee they will become...with increasing expectations over time balanced against increasing variability in outcomes over time. However, if one year in that employee continues to suck at their current job, their long term potential doesn't really matter. Moreso, the long term potential is no longer credibly evidenced by the inability to progress at doing the current job.

This is an investment gone bad in the current state of things. It doesn't matter what might happen it matters what did. The investment was made based on the perception of astonishing velocity, and it seems that we may need to calibrate our spedometers.

It's getting old but there's an xkcd for your kind of reasoning:

https://xkcd.com/605/

It amazes me how excited people are to see their livelihoods destroyed. I'm retired, but people designing AI in their 20's will be unemployed in a decade. Good luck dudes and dude-ettes, you're fucking yourselves.