My preferred formulation is Ximm's Law,

"Every critique of AI assumes to some degree that contemporary implementations will not, or cannot, be improved upon.

Lemma: any statement about AI which uses the word "never" to preclude some feature from future realization is false.

Lemma: contemporary implementations have almost always already been improved upon, but are unevenly distributed."

Replace “AI” with “fusion” and you immediately see the problem: there’s no concept of timescale or cost.

And with fusion, we already have a working prototype (the Sun). And if we could just scale our tech up enough, maybe we’d have usable fusion.

> Every critique of AI assumes to some degree that contemporary implementations will not, or cannot, be improved upon.

That is too reductive and simply not true. Contemporary critiques of AI include that they waste precious resources (such as water and energy) and accelerate bad environmental and societal outcomes (such as climate change, the spread of misinformation, loss of expertise), among others. Critiques go far beyond “hur dur, LLM can’t code good”, and those problems are both serious and urgent. Keep sweeping critiques under the rug because “they’ll be solved in the next five years” (eternally away) and it may be too late. Critiques have to take into account the now and the very real repercussions already happening.