| ▲ | siliconc0w 3 hours ago | |
Skimmed, some notes for a more 'bear' case: * value seems highly concentrated in a sliver of tasks - the top ten accounting for 32%, suggesting a fat long-tail where it may be less useful/relevant. * productivity drops to a more modest 1-1.2% productivity gain once you account for humans correcting AI failure. 1% is still plenty good, especially given the historical malaise here of only like 2% growth but it's not like industrial revolution good. * reliability wall - 70% success rate is still problematic and we're getting down to 50% with just 2+ hours of task duration or about "15 years" of schooling in terms of complexity for API. For web-based multi-turn it's a bit better but I'd imagine that would at least partly due to task-selection bias. | ||
| ▲ | xiphias2 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |
,,1% is still plenty good, especially given the historical malaise here of only like 2% growth but it's not like industrial revolution good.'' You can't compare the speed of AI improvements to the speed of technical improvements during the industrial revolution. ChatGPT is 3 years old. | ||