> 5% is pretty damn good, when AI clearly has a lot of room to get better.

That depends if the AI successes depended much on the leading edge of LLM developments, or if actually most of the value was just "low hanging fruit".

If the latter, that would imply the utility curve is levelling out, because new developments are not proving instrumental enough.

I'm thinking of an S curve: slow improvements through the 2010s, then a burst of activity as the tech became good enough to do something "real", followed by more gradual wins in efficiency and accuracy.

I agree it's an S-curve, but it's anyone's guess where on the S we are.

And regardless, I still see this as very positive for society - and don't care as much about whether or not this is an AI bubble or not.