I feel like this sort of misses the point. I didn't think the primary thrust of his article was so much about the specific details of AI, or what kind of tasks AI can now surpass humans on. I think it was more of a general analysis (and very well written IMO) that even when new technologies advance in a slow, linear progression, the point at which they overtake an earlier technology (or "horses" in this case), happens very quickly - it's the tipping point at which the old tech surpasses the new. For some reason I thought of Hemingway's old adage "How did you go bankrupt? - Slowly at first, then all at once."

I agree with all the limitations you've written about the current state of AI and LLMs. But the fact is that the tech behind AI and LLMs never really gets worse. I also agree that just scaling and more compute will probably be a dead end, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that progress will still happen even when/if those barriers are broadly realized.

Unless you really believe human brains have some sort of "secret special sauce" (and, FWIW, I think it's possible - the ability of consciousness/sentience to arise from "dumb matter" is something that I don't think scientists have adequately explained or even really theorized), the steady progress of AI should, eventually, surpass human capabilities, and when it does, it will happen "all at once".

▲

pcrh 2 days ago | parent [-]

For what it's worth, the decline in use of horses was much slower than you might expect. The model T Ford motor car reached peak production in 1925 [0], and for an inexact comparison (I couldn't find numbers for the US) the horse population of France started to decline in 1935, but didn't drop below 80% of its historical peak until the late 1940's down to 10% of its peak by the 1970's [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T#Mass_production

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7023172/

▲

hn_throwaway_99 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> For what it's worth, the decline in use of horses was much slower than you might expect.

Not really, given that the article goes into detail about this in the first paragraph, with US data and graphs: "Then, between 1930 and 1950, 90% of the horses in the US disappeared."

▲

pcrh 2 days ago | parent [-]

Eyeballing the chart in the OP and the French data shows them to have a comparable pattern. While OP's data is horses per person, and the French is total number of horses, both show a decline in horse numbers starting about 10 years after widespread adoption of the motor vehicle and falling to 50% of their peak in the mid- to late-1950's, with the French data being perhaps a bit over 5 years delayed compared to the US data. That is, it took 25 to 30 years after mass production of automobiles was started by Ford for 50% of "horsepower" to be replaced.

The point isn't to claim that motor vehicles did not replace horses, they obviously did, but that the replacement was less "sudden" than claimed.

▲

hn_throwaway_99 17 hours ago | parent [-]

> That is, it took 25 to 30 years after mass production of automobiles was started by Ford for 50% of "horsepower" to be replaced

I just googled "average horse lifespan", and the answer that came back was, exactly, "25-30 years". There's a clue in that number for you.

	▲	pcrh 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, I considered that. Someone using a horse-drawn wagon to deliver goods about town would likely not consider buying a truck until the cart horse needed replacing. The working life of a horse may be shorter than the realistic lifespan. Searching for "horse depreciation" gives 7 years for a horse under age 12, the prime years for a horse being between 7 and 12 yrs old, depending on what it is used for. I'm willing to accept the input of someone more knowledgeable about working horses, though!

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

throw9384940 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Frech eat horse meat. Cattle is still present in US...