> "But only help, they can't come up with the idea." "Sure they can, we can just ask them."

I've had multiple instances now where AI left to it's own devices has solved a tricky problem that I honestly didn't think it was capable of. I routinely have them design their own experiment loops, learn from each round and iterate on the process. Multiple times it has lead to a needle moving change with no need for human intervention.

There are, of course, many cases where this is not true, but they're certainly more capable than I had previously thought and can solve an increasingly large range of problems on their own.

Reading the comments here is like glimpsing in to either the past or an alternate timeline.

There's tons of inertia in the system so don't expect change to happen over night, but reading "AI won't replace jobs" today feels a lot like when I used to hear "nobody will purchase things online!" back in the mid 1990s.

Can you give a specific example, ideally that would not have been solved by people-hours amounting to less than the token costs?

> I've had multiple instances now where AI left to it's own devices has solved a tricky problem that I honestly didn't think it was capable of.

Who cares that you've had multiple instances? Everyone has had multiple instances. The question is whether that happens in EVERY instance. Because when someone's laid off, that's what the exec believes, that the person isn't needed at all.

I'm not arguing that AI won't replace jobs - it's clear that jobs are already disappearing "because of AI". I'm not even arguing that it is immoral (even though it is). I'm arguing that it is short-sighted and unwise.

> I routinely have them design their own experiment loops,

Exactly, so that's the person required in the dev loop. You directed it, a person.

These posts are so boring lmao.

if you really believe this, quit the yapping and concentrate your portfolio for direct and indirect exposure to all frontier AI projects.