I think so, that's why I think that the risk of pretty much ignoring the space is close to zero. If I happen to be catastrophically wrong about everything then any AI skills I would've learned today will be completely useless 5 years from now anyway, just like skills from early days of ChatGPT are completely useless today.

And if you can never catch up, how would someone new to the game ever be a meaningful player?

Wait around five years and then prompt: "Vibe me Windows" and then install your smart new double glazed floor. There is definitely something useful happening in LLM land but it is not and will never be AGI.

Oooh, let me dive in with an analogy:

Screwdriver.

Metal screws needed inventing first - they augment or replace dowels, nails, glue, "joints" (think tenon/dovetail etc), nuts and bolts and many more fixings. Early screws were simply slotted. PH (Philips cross head) and PZ (Pozidrive) came rather later.

All of these require quite a lot of wrist effort. If you have ever screwed a few 100 screws in a session then you know it is quite an effort.

Drill driver.

I'm not talking about one of those electric screw driver thingies but say a De W or Maq or whatever jobbies. They will have a Li-ion battery and have a chuck capable of holding something like a 10mm shank, round or hex. It'll have around 15 torque settings, two or three speed settings, drill and hammer drill settings. Usually you have two - one to drill and one to drive. I have one that will seriously wrench your wrist if you allow it to. You need to know how to use your legs or whatever to block the handle from spinning when the torque gets a bit much.

...

You can use a modern drill driver to deploy a small screw (PZ1, 2.5mm) to a PZ3 20+cm effort. It can also drill with a long auger bit or hammer drill up to around 20mm and 400mm deep. All jolly exciting.

I still use an "old school" screwdriver or twenty. There are times when you need to feel the screw (without deploying an inadvertent double entendre).

I do find the new search engines very useful. I will always put up with some mild hallucinations to avoid social.microsoft and nerd.linux.bollocks and the like.

FOMO is hell of a drug.

Those of us working from the bottom, looking up, do tend to take the clinical progressive approach. Our focus is on the next ticket.

My theory is that executives must be so focused on the future that they develop a (hopefully) rational FOMO. After all, missing some industry shaking phenomenon could mean death. If that FOMO is justified then they've saved the company. If it's not, then maybe the budget suffers but the company survives. Unless of course they bet too hard on a fad, and the company may go down in flames or be eclipsed by competitors.

Ideally there is a healthy tension between future looking bets and on-the-ground performance of new tools, techniques, etc.

> Test on mice, test in clinical trials, then go to market.

You're neglecting the cost of testing and validation. This is the part that's quite famous for being extremely expensive and a major barrier to developing new therapies.

Or just wait for things to settle. As fast as the field is moving, staying ahead of the game is probably high investment with little return, as the things you spend a ton of time honing today may be obsolete tomorrow, or simply built into existing products with much lower learning cost.

Note, if staying on the bleeding edge is what excites you, by all means do. I'm just saying for people who don't feel that urge, there's probably no harm just waiting for stuff to standardize and slow down. Either approach is fine so long as you're pragmatic about it.

But as it gets better, it'll also get easier, be built into existing products you already use, etc. So I wouldn't worry too much about that aspect. If you enjoy tinkering, or really want to dive deep into fundamentals, that's one thing, but I wouldn't worry too much about "learning to use some tool", as fast as things are changing.

Why should I worry about lacking preparation in the future? Why can't I just learn this as any other skill at any other time?

Interesting analogy, but I'd say it's kind of the opposite. In the two you mentioned, the cost of inaction is extremely high, so they reach one conclusion, whereas here the argument is that the cost of inaction is pretty low, and reaches the opposite conclusion.

I think it's like the California gold rush. Anybody and their brother can go out and dig, but the real money is in selling the shovels.